But it's more than the disclaimer.
Something will need to be done by 2033. Probably before.
Either raise SS withholding, reduce SS benefits or take it out of the
general fund. ah, oh wait.
In 2033 the lock box* will only have 73 cents for every $1 of out going
* a mythical place within the general fund for the money that is
credited to the SS fund. The money credited to this account has been
spent. Then more money was borrowed and spent. Then more money was
borrowed and spent. :-(
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
What the government did (naturally when Dems had the White House and The
House and Senate at the same time) was literally, legally, the same
thing Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels did in Dumb and Dumber. They took the
money and replaced it with IOU's. But us conservatives are just so dumb
aren't we. Fox News is so stupid as certain posters like to say (well
actually I stopped watching all TV news in 1984). Bush is such a dummy,
etc. But seriously, Christopher Hitchens had a great retort for the
people who repeatedly chanted "Bush is stupid." He said it was the kind
of criticism stupid people would come up with. (His exact words are on
youtube somewhere, in a Bill Maher interview IIRC.)
During the 1990's they kept chanting "affordable housing" and I wondered
what the hell they could possibly have in mind. Pay construction
workers less? Open land for development? Repeal regulations? They
were more clever than that. It turned out what they had in mind was to
force banks to give mortgages away under threat of prosecution on Civil
So now, when they say there is no problem with Social Security, what do
they really have in mind this time? I think I know. They will
confiscate private property, starting with corporate property. Then
they will effectively take from the value of 401k's and other savings.
When they can't possibly get enough revenue from the current year's
income, they will essentially tax past years over again. Eventually
they will move on to personal property by indirect means like imposing
property taxes comparable to charging rent. When they achieve their
goal of the state owning all property there won't be a SS problem or any
problem because they'll just pull all the strings.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:29:31 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
There never was any money there. Ever. It's a combination of ordinary
Treasury bonds and "special obligation" bonds. It always has been.
Ah, well, you said it. <g>
No, that wasn't the basis of it. The basis was to build lower-cost
housing when builders just wanted to build ever-higher-priced housing.
There was no plan or policy behind that; just a desire, which fit into
the reality when it seemed like every builder in America was building
McMansions and lobbying housing commissions and zoning boards to build
bigger houses on ever-smaller lots.
What you're talking about is another part of the puzzle, based on the
CRA and banks that complained the feds were forcing them to make risky
loans. But the banks had spent decades making loans at higher rates to
perfectly credit-worthy customers, with rates based solely on their
race. If you don't know the origins of the mortgage enforcements, look
up "redlining" and "reverse redlining," particularly the practices of
Wells Fargo Bank:
Anarcho-capitalists, like our friend Jon Ball, will now go into
overdrive while leaning on the horn, to dispute this. <g> But it can't
be disputed. Several banks were indicted for doing the same things:
Banks wanted to make the loans, and, when they figured out how to
offload them in fraudulent "tranches" that were mixed with some
quality loans, they went at it hell-bent. Countrywide was getting rich
on it. Meantime, the feds *were* pressuring banks to make loans that
were bad bets. There was plenty of bad faith to go around. It was a
mess that will be argued for years to come.
There is no problem with Social Security. That's another myth.
What's it like, living in a world of fear-fueled paranoia? Does it
make you happy to believe all of these cockamamie myths? Do you bother
to check them out? If not, why not?
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:48:55 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
You might make a fuller explaination of this. I think the government said
that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year.
Might have been as of 2015.
This from the government web site.
Social Security's total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of i
ts combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social S
ecurity cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year project
ion period. The Trustees project that this annual cash-flow deficit will av
erage about $76 billion between 2015 and 2018 before rising steeply as inco
me growth slows to its sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery i
s complete while the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substan
tially faster rate than the number of covered workers.
It may be no problem to you, but it sounds like a problem to me.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
Read the whole thing, Dan. It says about the same thing that was said
in 1987. Socieal Security needs another adjustment like it had it
1988. It's not a catastrophe. It's just the result of changing
And, if the Medicaid projections for the rest of the century hold true
(both accounts are intermingled), we're all screwed anyway, SS,
Medicare, or not.
> I think the government said that the money coming in is less than the money going out as of last year. Might have been as of 2015.
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 5:37:23 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
I did not say it was a catastrophy or that it could not be solved. But it sure sounds like a problem to me.
Say you are driving in your car and blue smoke starts coming out of the exhause pipe. That is a problem. Sure it can be fixed, but it is going to take money to do it. And you might have thought you were going to spend the money on something else.
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 14:58:26 -0700 (PDT), " email@example.com"
Those reports are always cautionary, telling Congress that it has to
act within a certain timeframe or there will be bad consequences. That
isn't anything new. It's the nature of the beast.
You know how the age demographics are going in this country (and most
western countries, plus some Asian countries). Sooner or later, you
either have to increase taxes or decrease benefits. There is no magic
lottery that will pay for it all.
If Congress acts fairly soon, the adjustments will be modest. Look at
what happened in 1988.
If you have blue smoke and you didn't have a clue it was coming,
that's one thing. When demographic and actuarial statistics give you a
30- or 50-year warning, that's a different thing.
What was the 1988 adjustment?
All I can find is, " (COLA). This adjustment, which was effective for
December 1988, resulted in a $728 million increase in the monthly
And something about the notch.
I can only come up with 4 fixes, raise the retirement age, cut
benefits, increase FICA taxes and remove/increase the cap.
Cutting benefits, a political nightmare.
Increase taxes, rough but probably doable.
Raise the retirement age, doable.
Remove/increase the cap, doable.
Got any others?
Eh, sorry, Mikek, that was 1983 -- the Greenspan commission. It's
getting harder to remember dates...
As for your suggestions, I generally agree. Means testing is an
essential one, IMO. Be prepared to make adjustments quickly with
changes in the economy and employment, is another.
I'd bump up the retirement age at least two years or so.
Then do an analysis with a few assumption options on the economy, and
see if anything else needs to be done. And get started quickly, so the
adjustments are as gradual as they can be.
Means testing is the one I hate most. I've spent 34 years living under
my less than middle class income so I could have a nest egg at
retirement. With a means test, those that earned 2 x what I did will
not get means tested, but because I saved, I will.
That's like spanking the good kid when the bad kid acts up.
It just ain't right.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
That could be a problem, but it depends on how they "means test." The
best thing, IMO, would be some combination of income over a long span
ot time, and resources.
In any case, I recognize the weakness of it. It's something to
On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 3:04:01 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
There are already three means tests for Social Security.
First is the amount they credit you with. I do not remember the exact fi
gures, but they credit you with 100 % of your earnings up to about $25,000
a year. Then they credit you with something like 50% of your earnings up t
o about $50,000. And they credit you with something like 10 % for earnings
over the $50,000.
Second social security is income tax free as long as your income is low. B
ut they tax 85% of your benefits if your income is above some level. I do
not pay much attention to the amount of income where this happens. I alwa
ys have to pay income tax on 85% of my Social Security.
And third they make you pay extra for Medicare if your income is above abou
t $200,000. Yipee, my wife and I get to pay that too.
I too spent less than many of my friends and saved more. So get to pay mor
e taxes now.
Now I agree that Social Security is needed. Too many people will not sav
e and need some way that they end up with something. But you ought to be a
ble to opt out of some of the FICA taxes in return for not getting as much
from Social Security.
On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
Give people the option to decline the amount of benefits they receive in exchange for a reduction in what they have to contribute while working.
Something like you can pay eighty percent of the usual while working, but you will only get 75% of the benefits you would get if you paid the full boat.
As was stated, the liberal government after the war stole the bulk of
the money to pay for war and said the money would come in the real time
deposits. They knew how to spend but not to save or calculate.
On 8/2/2015 4:10 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015 21:12:21 -0500, Martin Eastburn
What "money" are you talking about? SS has ALWAYS been a "pay as you
go" program. There never was any money stored up like nuts for winter.
The "Trust fund" is an accounting device. There is not, and never was,
any actual money there.
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.