GOP is coming after social security next.

[tehdang]

The key difference here is that when Dems are in control the debt doesn't usually spiral out of control. When the GOP is in control the debt frequently goes up. Yet for some reason the GOP likes to view themselves as disciplined about government debt. The partisan backlash you're whining about is really just some people laughing at GOP hypocrisy.

And yet its still better than the alternative. Hows that bear market helping your 401K?

And Dems are only too glad to claim credit for growing economies it took others to nurture, and them some years to kill off, but pleased to accept zero of the same credit for bad things they inherited. Such is politics. If it helps, the GOP has also done a poor job managing debt.

[Gestopft]

And Dems are only too glad to claim credit for growing economies it took others to nurture

Wondering exactly when this happened.

[tehdang]

https://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib112/

I guess if it goes broke, at least they can say our management overhead was low and thus hierarchically efficient. The evicted man can always say he was dutiful with the laundry fee.

[Glorious Leader]

I guess if it goes broke,.

The SS fund is measured in USD. The SS fund gets paid in USD. The United States government can literally keep SS as solvent as it likes forever. Solvency is never an issue for government that issue their own currency with no pegs. Cutting social spending is NEVER about solvency its always about beating up the poor.

[Zan15]

The only saving grace is that it would be really really hard for them to actually do because of how much it would directly (negatively) affect a key constituency. I think step one needs to be raise, if not eliminate, the taxable income cap on it. That would mostly, if not entirely, address the solvency. If it takes raising the eligibility age to get the votes, it's not preferable, but acceptable.

what should happen is a huge tax on estates from dollar one.
All that money then would be invested into SS and paying down the debt

Sorry but boomers and their parents are responsible for the majority of the debt and shortfall we currently are experiencing.

They were the ones who decided to let the debt get to 30 trillion and decided in 1990 they wanted to stop increasing SS tax an incremental fraction of a percent every few years.

They chose for immediate savings vs long term solvency of the SS system.

It's time we put our foot down on having to be stuck with the bills from these generations.

- - - Updated - - -

They've been screwing that exact group for years and just get more popular with them each time they do.

- - - Updated - - -



SS is billions in the green. The US government borrows from SS due to it being one of the few things in the US government that pays for itself.

the US govt does not borrow from SS.

The SS invest in Treasuries in order to gain interest in the excess capital it holds in reserve.

- - - Updated - - -

To rephrase this, the federal government has been jacking the money and replacing it with IOU's for decades now. It's just being refilled from general taxation, aka today's income tax receipts are being funneled into social security. National defense is complained about frequently, but can't touch it.

So by "billions in the green" you mean, well let's put it in SSA Trustees language,"the cost has exceeded non-interest income since 2010", "Total cost went higher than total income 2021," and "reserves deplete in 2035." You can't really say billions in the green if the money current retirees paid in over their lifetime is gone, but they're expecting to cash out for many years for money that hasn't been taken yet. Actuaries say the program is shit and dying ... current retirees from a baby-boom gen is increasing beneficiaries faster than lower-birthrate current payers can be taxed, and all that.

I mean, it can be nice putting on a blindfold for liabilities talk, and taking it off for the assets. It's extremely fun if you're saving for retirement!

So, by this logic Microsoft has been jacking my money and replacing it with an IOU that says i get 242 dollars per share they jacked from me!!!

If it wasn't for the 80-120 billion a year in interest they get from treasuries they buy the SS system would have been in the red a whole lot deeper and faster.

- - - Updated - - -

That being said its no mystery why SS is hurting. When you keep your cap at 130k for decades and since Reagan raided it by using it to pay for General Ledger expenses no wonder a great program is hurting. I laugh every single time a Republican cries about it being insolvent because y'all was the one who raided the retirement account in the first place.

not a dime was removed from the SS system. It never stopped collecting interest on all the excess capital it recieved

[tehdang]

the US govt does not borrow from SS.

The SS invest in Treasuries in order to gain interest in the excess capital it holds in reserve.

Those SSA Trustees are just looneys that don’t know that the payroll tax has been going into a pot to pay you back at retirement! I mean, hot take I guess.

So, by this logic Microsoft has been jacking my money and replacing it with an IOU that says i get 242 dollars per share they jacked from me!!!

If it wasn't for the 80-120 billion a year in interest they get from treasuries they buy the SS system would have been in the red a whole lot deeper and faster.

The SSA asks the treasury for its money back and … wait you think the treasury doesn’t borrow the money from investors to repay it? This operation all contributes to the national debt, and the future increase on the payments on the interest on that debt. And, of course, a negative cash flow balance in the trust fund since ~2010. It’s like watching the SSA Trustees report and pretending they’re just dismayed at stock prices going down.

[Draco-Onis]

[gondrin]

Those SSA Trustees are just looneys that don’t know that the payroll tax has been going into a pot to pay you back at retirement! I mean, hot take I guess.

Hmm, how can someone say they don't know how Social Security functions without outright saying it. At no time has Social Security ever been this way. It has ALWAYS been where future generations pay for current people getting it. The first person to ever receive SS never put a dime into it as it would have been impossible to do so.

Fun fact, the average person puts in around 7 -8 years of retirement over 40 - 50 years working(around $3000 per year put in while taking out around $18000 per year). SS is not an account which accrues for each person that you start to deduct from once you hit retirement age.

Also, another fun fact, SS is also a disability fund too that helps out those who are disabled. It isn't strictly for retirees.

[Adam Jensen]

I want out of this fucking country.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/social-sec...160343037.html
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...form-rcna33464

"You describe problems, but your answer is always the government — it’s always socialism,” Graham said.

...

Yes Graham, the type of "socialism" that seems to work fine in the rest of the developed world.

[Zan15]

Hmm, how can someone say they don't know how Social Security functions without outright saying it. At no time has Social Security ever been this way. It has ALWAYS been where future generations pay for current people getting it. The first person to ever receive SS never put a dime into it as it would have been impossible to do so.

Fun fact, the average person puts in around 7 -8 years of retirement over 40 - 50 years working(around $3000 per year put in while taking out around $18000 per year). SS is not an account which accrues for each person that you start to deduct from once you hit retirement age.

Also, another fun fact, SS is also a disability fund too that helps out those who are disabled. It isn't strictly for retirees.

well they are separate programs managed by the social security administration.

Disability Insurance (DI) is funded by payroll tax contributions from workers and their employers. Workers currently pay a tax of 0.9 percent of their wages up to $113,700, and their employers pay an equal amount. These tax contributions go into the Disability Insurance trust fund.

Funding for Supplemental Security (SSI) comes from the federal income tax and other federal revenues, not from the payroll tax.

[gondrin]

well they are separate programs managed by the social security administration.

Disability Insurance (DI) is funded by payroll tax contributions from workers and their employers. Workers currently pay a tax of 0.9 percent of their wages up to $113,700, and their employers pay an equal amount. These tax contributions go into the Disability Insurance trust fund.

Funding for Supplemental Security (SSI) comes from the federal income tax and other federal revenues, not from the payroll tax.

I am only talking about Social Security(the monthly stipend people can get when they turn 62, at the earliest) and Disability Insurance(for those who have become disabled sometime in life and cannot work due to it). SSI is more of a welfare thing that, as you stated, doesn't come from the SS(or known as FICA on paychecks).

Some people tend to think that the SS tax that they take out goes into an account that accrues interest for the person themselves which is never how it works which is what I was pointing out.

Both Social Security(retirement check) and DI both are part of the same tax(6.2% for the employee(5.3% for SS, 0.9% for DI)). Hence why I said Social Security also deals with long term disability and not just for retirees.

[Zan15]

I am only talking about Social Security(the monthly stipend people can get when they turn 62, at the earliest) and Disability Insurance(for those who have become disabled sometime in life and cannot work due to it). SSI is more of a welfare thing that, as you stated, doesn't come from the SS(or known as FICA on paychecks).

Some people tend to think that the SS tax that they take out goes into an account that accrues interest for the person themselves which is never how it works which is what I was pointing out.

Both Social Security(retirement check) and DI both are part of the same tax(6.2% for the employee(5.3% for SS, 0.9% for DI)). Hence why I said Social Security also deals with long term disability and not just for retirees.

The problems is that an entire party of supporters think that the govt raided social security and the money was used for other purposes.
They think Social Security should be bailed out and that is the only reason it's going bankrupt.

a while back for ha-ha's i read the trustee reports from decades ago and this all was predicted. Of course they were wrong about dates but not about the final outcome.

It was a total failure of the actuaries to set the predictions right, to make adjustments faster than when they did not "sell" it as a huge problem the republicans already pushed for a total halt of the incremental fractional percent increases every few years.

The only thing that is going to happen is Social Security is going to be bailed out with general tax dollars and borrowing trillions more on the backs of everyone else.
No politician will allow benefits to be cut for fear their party will end up with the blame by that powerful block of old voters.

What should happen is

- immediate increase in payroll taxes on a scaled level. Older working people paying more, younger people paying less of the increase. They never paid enough into the system it's time to pay up.

- Immediate increase in income caps.

- Immediate payroll tax on other "hidden/excluded income". No more getting 1 dollar salary while getting tax free 20 million in stock that never gets dinged for payroll taxes. Everyone else has to pay income tax + payroll tax why shouldn't they pay capital gains + payroll taxes?

- Immediate new inheritance tax that goes directly to social security and debt repayment. You racked the debt, you voted in these representatives who spent the money, your estate owes some payback.

Scales by how long you live. it's bullshit that some people live till they are 66 and get a fraction of the money out of the Social Security system they put in while some people like my grandmother hardly paid into it and got back "98-year old's" worth of full max benefits because grandpa made so much money on top of her minor amount.

Asset transfers after retirement age (or sooner) are also now taxed to fund SS to prevent people from avoiding the Social Security inheritance tax.


- Social Security investments in treasuries will require a larger interest payment by the govt above going treasury rates. The govt gets the benefit of those investment of those trillions relatively cheap and easy over the general market. Fuck that. At least a full basis point higher or the money will be invested elsewhere.

I was not for Social Security investing in riskier assets for the longest time but looking at how things are going it might be the only way to keep it solvent. They should gradually do it over time and give the treasury investments some competition. Social Security system needs to start acting like a real investment company and acting on behalf of the best interest of its participants. That means negotiating with the federal govt for much better returns or walking away.


With all or some of these changes you would not even have to change the retirement age. You could easily increase Social Security payment as well to offset huge gains in COL.

Most of it put the burden where it belongs, with the people who caused most of the problems. Most of the pain too would happen after they no longer need SS or before they need it.

[Endus]

I guess if it goes broke, at least they can say our management overhead was low and thus hierarchically efficient. The evicted man can always say he was dutiful with the laundry fee.

Programs like social security are not intended or expected to be revenue-neutral. Same with healthcare, or the post office, or any of these things Republicans mischaracterize. It's meant to be where government funding goes to provide support to those in need. If the Social Security fund needs topping up from other revenue sources as demographics shift, so be it. If it doesn't get that topping-off, the failure is not Social Security, it's the willful defunding of the program by the government.

[Beefhammer]

This isn't a new thing. They've always have been trying to gut or change Social Security since its inception.

No shit. They have been saying this shot for as long as I've been alive. That was pre Nixon.

- - - Updated - - -

Programs like social security are not intended or expected to be revenue-neutral. Same with healthcare, or the post office, or any of these things Republicans mischaracterize. It's meant to be where government funding goes to provide support to those in need. If the Social Security fund needs topping up from other revenue sources as demographics shift, so be it. If it doesn't get that topping-off, the failure is not Social Security, it's the willful defunding of the program by the government.

I mean, if the GOP can constantly take from it, then the Dems should do everything in their power to add back.

- - - Updated - - -

The problems is that an entire party of supporters think that the govt raided social security and the money was used for other purposes.
They think Social Security should be bailed out and that is the only reason it's going bankrupt.

a while back for ha-ha's i read the trustee reports from decades ago and this all was predicted. Of course they were wrong about dates but not about the final outcome.

It was a total failure of the actuaries to set the predictions right, to make adjustments faster than when they did not "sell" it as a huge problem the republicans already pushed for a total halt of the incremental fractional percent increases every few years.

The only thing that is going to happen is Social Security is going to be bailed out with general tax dollars and borrowing trillions more on the backs of everyone else.
No politician will allow benefits to be cut for fear their party will end up with the blame by that powerful block of old voters.

What should happen is

- immediate increase in payroll taxes on a scaled level. Older working people paying more, younger people paying less of the increase. They never paid enough into the system it's time to pay up.

- Immediate increase in income caps.

- Immediate payroll tax on other "hidden/excluded income". No more getting 1 dollar salary while getting tax free 20 million in stock that never gets dinged for payroll taxes. Everyone else has to pay income tax + payroll tax why shouldn't they pay capital gains + payroll taxes?

- Immediate new inheritance tax that goes directly to social security and debt repayment. You racked the debt, you voted in these representatives who spent the money, your estate owes some payback.

Scales by how long you live. it's bullshit that some people live till they are 66 and get a fraction of the money out of the Social Security system they put in while some people like my grandmother hardly paid into it and got back "98-year old's" worth of full max benefits because grandpa made so much money on top of her minor amount.

Asset transfers after retirement age (or sooner) are also now taxed to fund SS to prevent people from avoiding the Social Security inheritance tax.


- Social Security investments in treasuries will require a larger interest payment by the govt above going treasury rates. The govt gets the benefit of those investment of those trillions relatively cheap and easy over the general market. Fuck that. At least a full basis point higher or the money will be invested elsewhere.

I was not for Social Security investing in riskier assets for the longest time but looking at how things are going it might be the only way to keep it solvent. They should gradually do it over time and give the treasury investments some competition. Social Security system needs to start acting like a real investment company and acting on behalf of the best interest of its participants. That means negotiating with the federal govt for much better returns or walking away.


With all or some of these changes you would not even have to change the retirement age. You could easily increase Social Security payment as well to offset huge gains in COL.

Most of it put the burden where it belongs, with the people who caused most of the problems. Most of the pain too would happen after they no longer need SS or before they need it.

Just eliminate the cap all together and add the SS tax to all sources of income no exceptions. You could then easily double payouts, and lower the retirement age to collect. Freeing up jobs that older people are working becasue they have to.

[Zan15]

No shit. They have been saying this shot for as long as I've been alive. That was pre Nixon.

I mean, if the GOP can constantly take from it, then the Dems should do everything in their power to add back.

Just eliminate the cap all together and add the SS tax to all sources of income no exceptions. You could then easily double payouts, and lower the retirement age to collect. Freeing up jobs that older people are working becasue they have to.

Eliminating the cap even in the best-case scenario studies would not even cover the funding gap.

Changes to the tax cap could close roughly a quarter to nearly nine-tenths of Social Security’s solvency gap, depending on how they were structured.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...ocial-security

A cap change needs to happen on top of the other things I listed. The retired generation and the almost retired generation need to pay for what they underfunded.




Raising rates 0.1 percentage points per year until the combined payroll tax rate reaches 13.0 percent would close one-fifth of the solvency gap; continuing to raise the rate at that pace until it reached 14.8 percent would close two-thirds of the gap.

Changes to the rate would affect all covered workers and would not change benefits. A payroll tax rate of 13.0 percent would cost an average earner less than $3 in additional contributions each week (on top of his or her employer’s additional contribution of the same amount). A rate of 14.8 percent would cost $11.50 a week in addition to current payroll taxes.

[tehdang]

Hmm, how can someone say they don't know how Social Security functions without outright saying it. At no time has Social Security ever been this way. It has ALWAYS been where future generations pay for current people getting it. The first person to ever receive SS never put a dime into it as it would have been impossible to do so.

Fun fact, the average person puts in around 7 -8 years of retirement over 40 - 50 years working(around $3000 per year put in while taking out around $18000 per year). SS is not an account which accrues for each person that you start to deduct from once you hit retirement age.

Quoting back my sarcastic comment to another poster, I see? Well, you didn't make the comparison to stocks so I don't actually know if you would also do the same.

And please don't confuse Social Security with other programs started after the social security act. Unless you really want to spell it all out in a history lesson for the good of the thread. The 1935 Act did not include disabilities. Future attempts to rescue the program occurred, haltingly, in the decades since.

The retired generation and the almost retired generation need to pay for what they underfunded.

To illustrate the silliness of the original poster's take, you also could be accused of "coming after social security" with this comment.

[Beefhammer]

Eliminating the cap even in the best-case scenario studies would not even cover the funding gap.

Changes to the tax cap could close roughly a quarter to nearly nine-tenths of Social Security’s solvency gap, depending on how they were structured.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social...ocial-security

A cap change needs to happen on top of the other things I listed. The retired generation and the almost retired generation need to pay for what they underfunded.




Raising rates 0.1 percentage points per year until the combined payroll tax rate reaches 13.0 percent would close one-fifth of the solvency gap; continuing to raise the rate at that pace until it reached 14.8 percent would close two-thirds of the gap.

Changes to the rate would affect all covered workers and would not change benefits. A payroll tax rate of 13.0 percent would cost an average earner less than $3 in additional contributions each week (on top of his or her employer’s additional contribution of the same amount). A rate of 14.8 percent would cost $11.50 a week in addition to current payroll taxes.

You missed the adding the tax to all sources of income.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoting back my sarcastic comment to another poster, I see? Well, you didn't make the comparison to stocks so I don't actually know if you would also do the same.

And please don't confuse Social Security with other programs started after the social security act. Unless you really want to spell it all out in a history lesson for the good of the thread. The 1935 Act did not include disabilities. Future attempts to rescue the program occurred, haltingly, in the decades since.

To illustrate the silliness of the original poster's take, you also could be accused of "coming after social security" with this comment.

Only in some Bizzaro world. You do realize, most of the retired have pensions. So they wouldn't be coming after their SS.

[Hammerfest]

I want out of this fucking country.

I've noticed that throughout my life the American Left always says they will leave the country if X happens or Y doesn't happen. They almost never do this, but they say it. It runs the gamut from merely pissing-and-moaning to threatening. I can't think of a single "conservative" who has even said this, let alone ended up doing it. Unless you count the fictitious characters contained in "Atlas Shrugged," of course. No real ones though.

[Kaleredar]

I've noticed that throughout my life the American Left always says they will leave the country if X happens or Y doesn't happen. They almost never do this, but they say it. It runs the gamut from merely pissing-and-moaning to threatening. I can't think of a single "conservative" who has even said this, let alone ended up doing it. Unless you count the fictitious characters contained in "Atlas Shrugged," of course. No real ones though.

That's because no "western" country full of the lily-white people they'd tolerate living around is more conservative than the United States. They going to move to a European country, where healthcare is free and paid for by their tax dollars?


Conservatives might not "whine about moving to another country," (I'm sure they actually do) but they do sure whine about losing elections after saying they wouldn't. Like Trump is doing, actively, and his followers staged a deadly insurrection in an attempt to overturn.

[Endus]

I've noticed that throughout my life the American Left always says they will leave the country if X happens or Y doesn't happen. They almost never do this, but they say it. It runs the gamut from merely pissing-and-moaning to threatening. I can't think of a single "conservative" who has even said this, let alone ended up doing it. Unless you count the fictitious characters contained in "Atlas Shrugged," of course. No real ones though.

Then you were paying precisely zero attention to anything when Obama was President.