Christie to propose overhaul of Social Security Benefits

[Guest]

He says he will put an income cap on Social Security benefits. He will phase it out for those making more than $80,000 and it will be eliminated for those making $200,000 or more. He also wants to raise the age of retirement.

What do you think? Will it fly?

[Guest]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I would lower the range from $80K to 70K to begin the phasing out and eliminate completely at 150K. Fat cats making that kind of retirement do not need Social Security supplements.

[Guest]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I would lower the range from $80K to 70K to begin the phasing out and eliminate completely at 150K. Fat cats making that kind of retirement do not need Social Security supplements.

Obviously, you are not one of "fats cats". So, should they just forfeit the contributions made to Social Security over the course of their lifetime?

[Guest]

I think Christie knows a thing or two about Fat Cats...

[Guest]

Changes in the law come from Congress. It doesn't matter what he wants, if a bill isn't passed by Congress then nothing will change. This is strictly a position statement that he believes SS needs to be reformed and it does. There are numerous suggestions on how to deal with the bad trajectory that SS is on. I would not count on any changes to SS benefits anytime soon. A removal of the maximum annual tax is a possibility. However, I expect nothing will be done until there SS becomes a crisis. Congress loves a good crisis - good drama.


He says he will put an income cap on Social Security benefits. He will phase it out for those making more than $80,000 and it will be eliminated for those making $200,000 or more. He also wants to raise the age of retirement.

What do you think? Will it fly?

[Guest]

Changes in the law come from Congress. It doesn't matter what he wants, if a bill isn't passed by Congress then nothing will change. This is strictly a position statement that he believes SS needs to be reformed and it does. There are numerous suggestions on how to deal with the bad trajectory that SS is on. I would not count on any changes to SS benefits anytime soon. A removal of the maximum annual tax is a possibility. However, I expect nothing will be done until there SS becomes a crisis. Congress loves a good crisis - good drama.

Mode of operation if congress were responsible for firefighting:

they would wait until they could see the flames in the hallway.

Reaction behavior requires very little thinking. And that is why they do/don't do ANYTHING.

[Guest]

Mode of operation if congress were responsible for firefighting:

they would wait until they could see the flames in the hallway.

Reaction behavior requires very little thinking. And that is why they do/don't do ANYTHING.

An unfortunate, but essentially accurate, portrayal of how our democratic process usually works. I will give them credit for finally dealing with the "Doc fix' aspect of Medicare.

Also, we need to get the entitlements / Social Security system under better fiscal control. I'm willing to take my fair share of cuts, along with everyone else. Overall, we all benefit from a financially sound system and conversely, we all lose if it goes bust actuarially.

[Guest]

An unfortunate, but essentially accurate, portrayal of how our democratic process usually works. I will give them credit for finally dealing with the "Doc fix' aspect of Medicare.

Also, we need to get the entitlements / Social Security system under better fiscal control. I'm willing to take my fair share of cuts, along with everyone else. Overall, we all benefit from a financially sound system and conversely, we all lose if it goes bust actuarially.
When both Dems and Reps are in agreement on the "Doc fix" you can be 99.9% sure they passed cost to next generation. As far as social security most people want to believe trust fund is solid until 2035 when in fact there is no trust fund just governent promise to tax next generation. SS paying out more than it takes in now with line going straight up now. My hat is off to Christie for having courage to even suggest system is already bankrupt.

[Guest]

My first response to this is that social security is, has or will be in trouble because the "fat cats"in Congress can't keep their bloody hands off our money.
Secondly the social security fix is a political ploy crisis that make presidential candidates look serious but they have no idea what they are talking about.

For instance Christy's monetary cuts offs what do they mean? Just because a person is making $80,000 that doesn't mean their flush. what are their necessary living costs, health care costs. Does that person have a disability issue playing heavily on the family budget.

One poster said I would pay my fair share but he/she did when his/her pay check included a deduction for social security takes.

This social security issue is a classic example of class warfare that politicians love to play. S/he is making too much and doesn't need more. I beg your pardon you told me life was a not a rose garden and I took you seriously and I invested heavily, saved , worked and built myself a secure future and in all that time you never once said well we know you are going to be successful so will stop deducting your social security..........

Look its one thing to complain about someone double dipping but a person who paid into social security isn't that guy, and utilizing an arbitrary amount as a cut off can hurt a lot of people who have legitimate expenses that cut deep into their life savings.

So on this issue I am on the side of the people and I hold pols in disdain for for covering up their mismanagement of this program.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.

When both Dems and Reps are in agreement on the "Doc fix" you can be 99.9% sure they passed cost to next generation. As far as social security most people want to believe trust fund is solid until 2035 when in fact there is no trust fund just governent promise to tax next generation. SS paying out more than it takes in now with line going straight up now. My hat is off to Christie for having courage to even suggest system is already bankrupt.

[Guest]

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.

Yes, excellent point. A common misconception is that there's a big wad of money sitting safely in a "bank" or trust fund waiting to be tapped. It's all basically a big IOU and depends on current intake to ideally be at least a bit more than the payout.

I agree with previous poster ... mismanagement by at least a generation of politicians from both parties. They do what they all do ... kick the can down the road and hope that, if/when something hits the fan, they will be safely out of office. This is one topic where R's and D's can be genuinely bipartisan.

[Guest]

This is not exactly true. There actually is a SS trust fund and it has $2.6T. Unfortunately, it contains $2.6T in IOUs from the Treasury Department to SS. These IOUs represent a commitment by the Treasury Department to go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay SS benefits. The reason the "trust fund" contains $2.6T is that SS took in more in SS tax then they paid out in benefits for a long period of time. The excess went into the General Fund (i.e. was spent) and Treasury gave SS IOUs in exchange. What should have happened was SS taxes should have been adjusted annually to match the benefits paid. In this case, we would have $2.6T less debt today.
You explain that as anyone trying to convince someone bigfoot exist. Regardless of how much lipstick you apply to that pig there is no "trust fund" backed by assets. You can raise taxes or borrow (steal) from next generation. The "they" you refer to are the polititians we voted in because they promised us something for nothing. We have some bitter medicine to take and should start taking it now. I'm thinking the next generation will wake up someday and we'll be screwed, and deserve to be.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, you appear to have failed to grasp the significance of what I wrote. Please reread and try to understand what I was saying. I clearly was not putting lipstick on anything. I was trying to explain what the "trust fund" actually is. I never said it was backed by assets. You appear to only want to vent some anger. So I will repeat. The "trust fund" is a commitment to do nothing more than go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay benefits. So there is no further confusion on your part, this is not a good thing. I will not make the mistake again of trying to explain things is a calm, coherent manner only to be ridiculed by someone like you.

You explain that as anyone trying to convince someone bigfoot exist. Regardless of how much lipstick you apply to that pig there is no "trust fund" backed by assets. You can raise taxes or borrow (steal) from next generation. The "they" you refer to are the polititians we voted in because they promised us something for nothing. We have some bitter medicine to take and should start taking it now. I'm thinking the next generation will wake up someday and we'll be screwed, and deserve to be.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, the Government can only "invest" the excess SS taxes in special Treasury Bills, which are nothing more than a commitment to acquire more debt on the global markets when SS needs to "cash them it" to pay benefits. It is a bizarre situation.

Yes, excellent point. A common misconception is that there's a big wad of money sitting safely in a "bank" or trust fund waiting to be tapped. It's all basically a big IOU and depends on current intake to ideally be at least a bit more than the payout.

I agree with previous poster ... mismanagement by at least a generation of politicians from both parties. They do what they all do ... kick the can down the road and hope that, if/when something hits the fan, they will be safely out of office. This is one topic where R's and D's can be genuinely bipartisan.

[Guest]

I must admit that I have come to ignore some of the technical aspects of government speak because there has been so many layers of creative accounting by pols that one could get caught up in Abbott's/Costello's "Who Is On First?" and its obviously intentional on their part and I am not going to continue to play their game.

Few if any presidential candidates have the political power or will to effectively alter social security. Social security was a good thing that pols greed destroyed. I say so because some folks just will never save they can't or won't and at least this safety net reduce some actual entitlements (ie things they never paid for, unlike SS deductions. For those of us who did save or do, SS has been the third leg of our retirement program.

I agree with adjustments in retirement age and monthly deductions because people live longer and because income brackets etc have changed over the years.

So again we have the pols diverting the problem as being social security when the problem is with thir management and perhaps the focus ought to be on their mismanagement. I write my representatives often and flatly tell them to keep their hands off our money

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Social Security has not been destroyed. However, it could use some modifications (in terms of tax rates and benefits) to reflect current and future demographics as a way of preventing unreasonable SS tax increases in the future (in order to maintain current benefits). I will let you define what "unreasonable" is. The last major changes were over 30 years ago. Whether we will get those changes in the near term is doubtful, in my opinion.

The fundamental issue that makes Social Security viable today, and into the future, is that each worker produces more than he needs and some of that productivity is siphoned off, in the form of taxes, to support retired people. Social Security is a "pay as you go plan". Increases in productivity and/or decreases in benefits will control how much the workers are taxed to support Social Security. The $2.6T "trust fund" simply marks the point in time where Congress will have to make changes to SS or, by law, will be forced to reduce the current benefit schedule. SS has already turned the corner and is paying out more than it takes in but the Treasury department can legally take on new global debt to pay the short fall. Once the "trust fund" (which is only IOUs from Treasury to SS that were issued when SS taxes exceeded benefits payed) is "exhausted", SS will not be legally able to pay 100% of benefits. I believe the projection is 77% of benefits in 2033. Don't be confused by Government rhetoric: the "trust fund" is really an illusion to everybody but Government accountants. For example, in your own personal finances you don't typically write yourself an IOU for $1000 and then go a buy a new TV and call it a wash. If you do, your probably have debt problems.

SS benefits must be paid by incoming SS taxes otherwise the Government must take on additional debt. That is where we are today: incoming SS benefits are larger than incoming SS taxes and the Government is taking on additional debt when the "trust fund" IOUs are exchanged for real money on the global debt markets. The IOUs will have all been "cashed in" in 2033, by current projections.


I must admit that I have come to ignore some of the technical aspects of government speak because there has been so many layers of creative accounting by pols that one could get caught up in Abbott's/Costello's "Who Is On First?" and its obviously intentional on their part and I am not going to continue to play their game.

Few if any presidential candidates have the political power or will to effectively alter social security. Social security was a good thing that pols greed destroyed. I say so because some folks just will never save they can't or won't and at least this safety net reduce some actual entitlements (ie things they never paid for, unlike SS deductions. For those of us who did save or do, SS has been the third leg of our retirement program.

I agree with adjustments in retirement age and monthly deductions because people live longer and because income brackets etc have changed over the years.

So again we have the pols diverting the problem as being social security when the problem is with thir management and perhaps the focus ought to be on their mismanagement. I write my representatives often and flatly tell them to keep their hands off our money

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Don't forget, politicians, governors or presidents DO NOT pay into Social Security, so what is their commitment to fix it? They will still draw their huge taxpayer funded pensions after Social Security goes broke.

[Guest]

This is just plain incorrect information. You really should learn to do some basic research before posting in a public forum. Members of Congress pay into Social Security and does the president, vice-president, judges, etc. It all changed on January 1984 - this is really old news - you are living in the past.


Don't forget, politicians, governors or presidents DO NOT pay into Social Security, so what is their commitment to fix it? They will still draw their huge taxpayer funded pensions after Social Security goes broke.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, you appear to have failed to grasp the significance of what I wrote. Please reread and try to understand what I was saying. I clearly was not putting lipstick on anything. I was trying to explain what the "trust fund" actually is. I never said it was backed by assets. You appear to only want to vent some anger. So I will repeat. The "trust fund" is a commitment to do nothing more than go out on the global markets to borrow money to pay benefits. So there is no further confusion on your part, this is not a good thing. I will not make the mistake again of trying to explain things is a calm, coherent manner only to be ridiculed by someone like you.
I did not mean that as a personal attack and apologize. But if we continue to refer to "SS Trust Fund" it takes the urgency away which I believe all pols and most people getting a check want to do. The only fixes I've heard agreement on mean increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date for future retiries (our children and grandchildren) and that is not ok for some of us.

[Guest]

This is just plain incorrect information. You really should learn to do some basic research before posting in a public forum. Members of Congress pay into Social Security and does the president, vice-president, judges, etc. It all changed on January 1984 - this is really old news - you are living in the past.

Absolutely right. Same as Federal Government employees. Those hired in 1983 or earlier contributed to the Civil Service Retirement System - actually a .5% higher than Social Security. Those after 1983 contribute to the Social Security system and receive retirement under the Federal Employee Retirement System which is a combo of Social Security and Thrift Savings Plan.

[Guest]

You can call it what you want but it doesn't impact how people view SS. Pol won't touch it because they want to get reelected and I would guess less than 1% of the general public understand how SS works and the state it is in.

The reason you have only heard of fixes such as increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date is because those are the only options. There are only two "knobs" to turn: increase the amount of money coming in and/or decrease the amount of money going out. This is basic budgeting and SS is a pay as you go program.

I did not mean that as a personal attack and apologize. But if we continue to refer to "SS Trust Fund" it takes the urgency away which I believe all pols and most people getting a check want to do. The only fixes I've heard agreement on mean increased taxes, lower benefits, and later retirement date for future retiries (our children and grandchildren) and that is not ok for some of us.

[Guest]

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

[Guest]

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

[Guest]

If they would stop the freebies to illegals and to the people that never worked and stop moving the funds over to and absorbing the money to the general fund and accounting for where the money has gone we would never run out of money for SS. The account has been mismanaged and robbed for years so now they want cuts or move the age higher. BS . Any time our wonderful government gets involved with money which is all the time we get s---wed. They have great ideas and nothing really works. Maybe we should listner to that guy in that landed in DC capital building

Actually the "illegals" are subsidizing the SS program. It would be in a lot worse shape if it wasn't for them to a tune of 5-10 % of the trust funds assets per year!

Edward Schumacher-Matos - How illegal immigrants are helping Social Security (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090202673.html)

[Guest]

You are incorrect. The article estimated that the total illegal contribution was $120-240B, which is 5-10% of the current "trust fund". This is not per year - this is the total amount ever paid. Big difference. SS paid out $894B in 2014. Illegal aliens had a net contribution to Social Security of $12B last year. That is a little more than 1% - hardly a significant amount on an annual basis.

Actually the "illegals" are subsidizing the SS program. It would be in a lot worse shape if it wasn't for them to a tune of 5-10 % of the trust funds assets per year!

Edward Schumacher-Matos - How illegal immigrants are helping Social Security (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090202673.html)

[Guest]

That is 12 Billion Dollars that was not there before!

Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security when they are paid above the table AND they will not be getting any of it back.

Most retirees will get back ALL of their contributions PLUS a lot more.

Chris Christie has the right idea!

[Guest]

Of course Chris Christie has the right idea. Anyone and everyone who talks about making changes to SS has the right idea. The current trajectory of SS is very bad. Regarding the illegal contribution to SS, every little bit helps but 1% is not significant.

That is 12 Billion Dollars that was not there before!

Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security when they are paid above the table AND they will not be getting any of it back.

Most retirees will get back ALL of their contributions PLUS a lot more.

Chris Christie has the right idea!

[Guest]

You are incorrect. The article estimated that the total illegal contribution was $120-240B, which is 5-10% of the current "trust fund". This is not per year - this is the total amount ever paid. Big difference. SS paid out $894B in 2014. Illegal aliens had a net contribution to Social Security of $12B last year. That is a little more than 1% - hardly a significant amount on an annual basis.

Contractors pay either pay the illegal workers under the table cash or allow them every two years to change their name and SS# while claiming the absolute most dependents. Then pay almost no taxes. Thus they never file state or federaltax forms. They live in section 8 housing with their illegal girl friends who get to stay home with their babies and free food too.
While the lucky middle class couples with kids have two jobs paying taxes while also paying $2000 and up for day care.
What a great system..

[Guest]

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

Is the highlighted above intended to infer that SS funds have not been used for anything other than SS benfit?

[Guest]

SS is a pay was you go program. Money is not put away in an account under your name. The reality of the situation is that each working person is "supporting" more retired people now then in the past and the ratio will only get worse. SS taxes must increase and/or benefits must be reduced to continue the program as America continues to grey. People are living longer than ever and collecting benefits for a longer period of time than ever before. Raising the retirement age is one way to stabilize the program.

The SS program has not been mismanaged. other than there inability to effectively clamp down on fraud. Congress has not addressed the funding issue yet but there is time to change the trajectory. The Government has no vehicle for investing the SS surpluses of the past other than Treasury Bills - essentially IOUs from Treasury to SS. Those IOUs will be used up in 2033, at which point there is no legal way to borrow money (and the cashing in of those IOUs is nothing more than borrowing money on the global market) to fund the shortfall. Benefits will have to be reduced at that time if no changes to SS are made. If you want to discuss the inability of our Government to balance the budget that is an entirely different topic, and yes they have done a miserable job.

Really?
So loaning private funds to a general fund account is backed by IOU's??

How many investments would the general public make based on being given an IOU? With a company that can only profess to be able to borrow money to pay back the investor?!?!?!

I do not know the answer, but where is it written that there is no place to go except Treasury bills?

[Guest]

Really?
So loaning private funds to a general fund account is backed by IOU's??


What private funds?
IOU's backed by "the full faith and credit" of the United States.

[Guest]

What private funds?
IOU's backed by "the full faith and credit" of the United States.

Call it whatever is correct in the parlance of government accounting or practice. However, my reference is to those funds contributed by individuals that will be expecting to get that (their) money back at an appropriate time.

As opposed to the genral fund with is not designated toward individual tax payers and thus available to squander.

No different than contributing to a retirement fund in a corporation. That money is not to be used by the corporation and replaced with an IOU.

I am aware of companies that do siphon off what they have decided are excess funds and used for other than the individuals retirement. Excess is/was the amount of $$ over and above the amount needed to satisfy all retirement payouts. Much different than an IOU as the basic contribution plus earnings is still intact. Making use of the excess....a legal accounting tactic.
I did not say right...just legal tactic.

The government could just as well have had an excess if they monies taken from SS were invested and not squandered......replaced with an IOU!!!
Borrowing money to fund IOU's. How long would that be tolerated in corporate America? Banking America?

[Guest]

From the perspective of the Government, the excess SS funds have been "tucked away" in special Treasury bills till such time as they are needed. As I stated earlier, this is essentially an accounting trick to legally allow Treasury to go out on the global market to borrow the money when the IOUs are cashed in by SS. Is this mismanagement by SS? I don't think so. SS does what they are told by Congress. There is other legal way to "invest" the excess taxes that were collected in the name of SS. Essentially, Treasury borrowed money from SS to help pay for deficit budgets. You can certainly argue that they should have adjusted SS taxes on an annual basis to exactly match benefits paid - that would have left more money in my pocket. In that case, Treasury would have borrowed even more money. If you want to argue that Congress has mismanaged something then point to the entire Government - I wouldn't pick just on SS.

Is the highlighted above intended to infer that SS funds have not been used for anything other than SS benfit?

[Guest]

The Federal Government is not allowed to invest the excess SS taxes, that were collected, in anything other than Treasury Bills. They are, as I understand, a special form of Treasury Bill. They collected more SS tax then need to pay benefits for a long period of time. Treasury put the SS taxes (including the excess) in the general fund, spent it (including paying SS benefits), and issued special Treasury Bills to SS (I call them IOUs) for the excess that was collected. That is how the Government operates.

Really?
So loaning private funds to a general fund account is backed by IOU's??

How many investments would the general public make based on being given an IOU? With a company that can only profess to be able to borrow money to pay back the investor?!?!?!

I do not know the answer, but where is it written that there is no place to go except Treasury bills?

[Guest]

Two issues. First off, the Government makes up their own rules. Secondly, SS is not like a 401(k) or IRA. The money you contributed does not have your name on it. SS is a pay as you go program. When you work, you pay for those getting SS benefits. When you retire, your SS benefits are paid by those working.

The Government cannot invest the excess SS taxes that were collected in the same way that you or a private company can. By law, the money can only be "invested" in Treasury Bills. The actual excess money that was collected was indeed spent since we have always, with just a few exceptions, had deficit budgets. SS has earned a fair amount of interest on those Treasury Bills (on paper). What most people fail to realize is the cashing in of those "investments" when SS taxes can't cover benefits that are due (this is where we are now), requires taking on additional real debt on the global markets to get real money to pay those benefits since we continue to run deficit budgets. Before that point, it is a zero sum game as one Government Department wrote an IOU to another Government Department.

Call it whatever is correct in the parlance of government accounting or practice. However, my reference is to those funds contributed by individuals that will be expecting to get that (their) money back at an appropriate time.

As opposed to the genral fund with is not designated toward individual tax payers and thus available to squander.

No different than contributing to a retirement fund in a corporation. That money is not to be used by the corporation and replaced with an IOU.

I am aware of companies that do siphon off what they have decided are excess funds and used for other than the individuals retirement. Excess is/was the amount of $$ over and above the amount needed to satisfy all retirement payouts. Much different than an IOU as the basic contribution plus earnings is still intact. Making use of the excess....a legal accounting tactic.
I did not say right...just legal tactic.

The government could just as well have had an excess if they monies taken from SS were invested and not squandered......replaced with an IOU!!!
Borrowing money to fund IOU's. How long would that be tolerated in corporate America? Banking America?

[Guest]

That works as long as somebody is willing to buy Treasury Bills.


What private funds?
IOU's backed by "the full faith and credit" of the United States.