social security

[Danzig]

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democra...ritys-red-ink/


Summary
Some senior Democrats are claiming that Social Security does not contribute "one penny" to the federal deficit. That’s not true. The fact is, the federal government had to borrow $37 billion last year to finance Social Security, and will need to borrow more this year. The red ink is projected to total well over half a trillion dollars in the coming decade.
President Barack Obama was closer to the mark than some of his Democratic allies when he said that Social Security is "not the huge contributor to the deficit that [Medicare and Medicaid] are." That’s correct: Medicare and Medicaid consume more borrowed funds than Social Security, and their costs are growing more rapidly. But Obama’s own budget director, Jacob Lew, was misleading when he wrote recently that "Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing." That’s not true, except in a very narrow, legalistic sense, and doesn’t change the fact that Social Security is now a small but growing drain on the government’s finances.Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010. But the fact is that Social Security has now passed a tipping point, beyond which the Congressional Budget Office projects that it will permanently pay out more in benefits than it gathers from Social Security taxes. The imbalance is made even larger this year by a one-year "payroll tax holiday" that was enacted as part of last year’s compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts. The lost Social Security tax revenues are being made up with billions from general revenues that must all be borrowed. The combined effect is to add $130 billion to the deficit in the current fiscal year.
It’s important to note that benefit payments are not in immediate danger. Under current law, scheduled benefits can be paid until about 2037, according to the most recent projections. But keeping those benefits flowing is already requiring the use of funds borrowed from the public. So we judge the claim that Social Security is not currently contributing to the deficit to be false.



the last paragraph:




For more on the future effect of Social Security on the budget, see "Social Security and the Budget," a report co-authored by Steuerle for the Urban Institute last May. A figure on page 4 graphically illustrates that Social Security’s expenses are projected to outrun its income. The gap is projected to grow to close to 2 percent of the national gross domestic product and remain there for decades, as far in the future as 2080 and beyond.

[Danzig]

more, from the same article:

Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the "payroll tax holiday" will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the " tax holiday" and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.

As recently as October, CBO was projecting that it would be 2016 before outlays regularly exceed revenues. But Social Security’s fiscal troubles are more severe than was thought, and the latest projections show the permanent deficits started several years ahead of earlier predictions.Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds.And don’t be misled by those who say the system can pay full benefits until about 2037 without making any changes to the law. That’s true, but does not change the fact that Social Security taxes no longer cover those benefits. The government is now borrowing money to pay them, and will do so every year for the foreseeable future. And keep in mind, if nothing is done, when those trust funds are exhausted, benefits would have to be cut by 22 percent in 2037, and more each year after that, according to the most recent report of the system’s trustees. By 2084, the system will generate only enough revenue to pay for 75 percent of promised benefit levels.

[Danzig]

When Lew says Social Security is "entirely self-financing," he refers to the trust funds that have built up assets of more than $2.5 trillion over the years. That’s what the rest of the government has borrowed and spent on other things. Those trust funds and the future interest payments will keep benefits funded at promised levels for years to come, it’s true. But unless the government raises taxes or cuts other spending substantially, the government will need to borrow more from the public to finance its obligations to the trust funds.

[dellinger63]

True Ponzi scheme.

As soon as contributions don't cover expenses it will be exposed for what it's always been!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

When Lew says Social Security is "entirely self-financing," he refers to the trust funds that have built up assets of more than $2.5 trillion over the years. That’s what the rest of the government has borrowed and spent on other things. Those trust funds and the future interest payments will keep benefits funded at promised levels for years to come, it’s true. But unless the government raises taxes or cuts other spending substantially, the government will need to borrow more from the public to finance its obligations to the trust funds.

Simple fix, like the other simple fixes that have happened over the years:

Raise the cap to $200,000 or $250,000

Social security will then be funded at full benefits (heck could even increase benefits with that) into perpetuity based upon expected population and length of life.

Yes it's that simple.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

True Ponzi scheme.

Silly hyperbole.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Simple fix, like the other simple fixes that have happened over the years:

Raise the cap to $200,000 or $250,000

Social security will then be funded at full benefits (heck could even increase benefits with that) into perpetuity based upon expected population and length of life.

Yes it's that simple.

Sure punish success.....Capitalism at its best!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Simple fix, like the other simple fixes that have happened over the years:

Raise the cap to $200,000 or $250,000

Social security will then be funded at full benefits (heck could even increase benefits with that) into perpetuity based upon expected population and length of life.

Yes it's that simple.

and who's going to suggest that simple fix?! the leading dems are all in denial about the need for a fix. i still don't understand why they lowered the ss withholding for the year-making a bad situation worse. we're facing a serious situation. viewing the problem thru rose-colored glasses saying 'oh, it's so easy to fix' when no one is willing to take the bull by the horns is no fix at all. our oh so brave pols are unwilling to do something that might cost them some votes come election time.
yeah, we all know we need to bell the cat. the question is who will do the deed???


the truly sad part will be when our taxes get raised to pay interest on the money borrowed. so, we pay extra to put our money back into ss, where it should have stayed in the first place.


as for 'raising the cap'....how can you require people to put into social security, ostensibly for them to regain at retirement, and then tell them they can't have it after all? it's no longer a retirement fund when you do that-it's a tax.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Sure punish success.....Capitalism at its best!

Not really. Has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "success". You're defining "success" backwards, based upon where the cap is now. That's not very logical. The vast majority of people pay out of every dollar they earn. The cap is arbitrary. No reason not to move it up a little.

Move it up a little, especially on people that will hardly notice it, versus people where it will make a life-impacting change, and everyone - including them - benefits greatly.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and who's going to suggest that simple fix?! the leading dems are all in denial about the need for a fix.

Harry Reid has already suggested that this senate. The Dems have always embraced that.

The "denial" is what you posted about the stability of the system for the next 27 years; the Dems accurately point out that SS does not need an "immediate emergency fix with reduction of benefits" as the Republicans would like to do, are maintaining must be done, right now.

as for 'raising the cap'....how can you require people to put into social security, ostensibly for them to regain at retirement, and then tell them they can't have it after all?

What are you talking about? Nobody would do that. Who would be told they can't have it? I don't know what you are speaking of? Believe me, with the ages people are living to now, everyone would still get out more than they put in, as now. The cash flow would be outstandingly better.

it's no longer a retirement fund when you do that-it's a tax.

A tax? No. It's exactly what we have now. Exactly. A percentage of income up to a dollar amount of gross income. The cap is simply raising that dollar amount from $103,800 to $200,000.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Harry Reid has already suggested that this senate. The Dems have always embraced that.

The "denial" is what you posted about the stability of the system for the next 27 years; the Dems accurately point out that SS does not need an "immediate emergency fix with reduction of benefits" as the Republicans would like to do, are maintaining must be done, right now.



What are you talking about? Nobody would do that. Who would be told they can't have it? I don't know what you are speaking of? Believe me, with the ages people are living to now, everyone would still get out more than they put in, as now. The cash flow would be outstandingly better.



A tax? No. It's exactly what we have now. Exactly. A percentage of income up to a dollar amount of gross income. The cap is simply raising that dollar amount from $103,800 to $200,000.

er, the denial was in the link above, where leading dems said that ss has no effect on the deficit, which is untrue. they seem to have no idea what state ss is in, which probably explains the cut to withholding. yeah, let's lower taxes..then we can raise them to pay the interest to get ss back where it needs to be. makes perfect sense. and yes, it is a tax. let's not kid ourselves on that. changing retirement ages, cutting benefits, etc. many do not get back what they put in.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not really. Has nothing to do with "capitalism" or "success". You're defining "success" backwards, based upon where the cap is now. That's not very logical. The vast majority of people pay out of every dollar they earn..

Look I consider success (at least financially) in dollars made not dollars paid in taxes.

I know Dems would love to see virtually every shortfall covered by the (vast minority as you'd call them) in fact that is the essence of them being called socialistic.

BTW Dems who are currently in support of the overpaid fat and happy public workers don't seem the least concerned with the 'vast majority' being forced to pay despite barely making it.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Look I consider success (at least financially) in dollars made not dollars paid in taxes.

I know Dems would love to see virtually every shortfall covered by the (vast minority as you'd call them) in fact that is the essence of them being called socialistic.

BTW Dems who are currently in support of the overpaid fat and happy public workers don't seem the least concerned with the 'vast majority' being forced to pay despite barely making it.

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

[jms62]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

Social Security was fixed in the mid-80's but our forward thinking presidents took the money and left a bunch of IOU's. All of them Regan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

On another note if you are not pissed off enough I highly recommend

http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Mach...9521214&sr=8-1

[Princess Doreen]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

Every time there is a shortfall in the government, it's always the rich people's fault; it's never the government's spend too much fault.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans!

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

When the top 5% 'the rich' pay for 54% over half of income tax collected I'd argue they are paying their fair share and then some.

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Instead of quoting statistics how about forgetting the political sound bites for a second and looking at the effects on real folks, if you depend on SS for your entire income, not having a cost of living raise for two years coupled with rising Medicare costs has already effected you, making it hard to just exist. The last thing you need is further cuts/cost increases. On the other hand, if you have hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in yearly income, you can survive and prosper without social security. If you are rich, I get your opposition...it's called greed and I understand that but if not, why continue to drink the political kool-ade. Folks are so afraid that someone will "get something for nothing" that they are blinded to real need.

When an argument is put forward that first highlights how much more should go to the poor, and then asserts that the rich don't "need" as much because they have so much left over, you can be sure that the principle espoused is a socialist one.

5% of people paying 54% of the bill isn't "fair"? Are you kidding? How much is enough???

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Every time it is suggested that the rich pay their fair share there is a cry of "unfair" from the Republicans. I don't care whether you call it a tax or a loaf of bread, the bottom line is that Social Security needs repair and you can do so by taking away from those who don't need it or those who do, wipe away all the political crap and it's that simple. Call it Socialism if it make you feel better but if you have a six digit yearly income you simply don't need social security, if you rely on that monthly check to survive...you sorta do!

wow
So if I read this correctly, not only should the wealthy pay more into social security, (their "fair share"), but they should also get zero benefits?
your sense of fairness doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
this type of argument is always used to derail legitimate refrom of the program. its not going to be fixed simply by taking more from the wealthy. the big problem is the the declining number of workers supporting a larger population of retirees.