Social Security Trust Fund

[Paper1]

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

[MDLNB]

Population of the US = 324,443,471
Today's work force = 152,262,046

When you have less people working than taking, what do you think is happening to the Social Security fund? That's not saying that everyone that is not working is receiving SS, but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you.

[billethkid]

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

The spending more than we have has been going on for years. Were you concerned during the Obama years that we as a country had to borrow 45% of every dollar we spent?

That the national debt doubled during Obama's reign?

That more people who are not entitled, nor have paid into the system were added each and every year for the last 8 years?

Nothing new on this subject what so ever!!!

[Don Baldwin]

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

They BORROW it...take it out of thin air...shazam! Another $ trillion to spend! Woo hoo!

Pick me...pick me...I contributed to your campaign.

[dirtbanker]

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.

[MDLNB]

If no one attempts to correct the path to depletion of our SS, the first thing that will happen (legally) will be the lowering of the monthly payout. Meaning, each recipient will get a lower check each month. There is a provision for this in the SS regs, so don't act surprised when it happens. Republicans want to do something to sustain SS, while the left wants to ignore the cliff that is approaching fast. It's not all gloom and doom, just fact that it is either fixed or we do without, period.

[Rockyrd]

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

You are on the right track in your thinking.

It does appear that spending is now the name of the game, although that is a bit unfair, but still have no heard a word about anything but spending. In addition, our newest drama with Mexico could cost a few bucks.

So keep your eye on the spending which is my second biggest concern (our foreign affairs being first) but there is a glimmer of hope.....House Social Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, R-Texas has introduced legislation aimed at exactly what you speak of and to try and do it with no harm on current recepeints,

The link below will lead you to some details, etc but basically, Rep Johnson proposes raising the retirement age to 69.

In addition, ranking Democratic member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. John Larson is also introducing legislation to raise the payroll tax cap on Social Security contributions, which would have a major impact.

Even without the obvious new spending, this needs to be done.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/social-security-can-survive-without-benefit-cuts.html

[autumnspring]

RE: Social Security
Government hoodwinking the population is not at all new. When first sold to the people it was stated as savings plan and you would withdraw YOUR MONEY in the future. That never was the case. New money is TAKEN from people working to pay out to people collecting. When, first established there were aprox 11 people working for every person collecting today because of us, a trmendous bubble of population going through, there are only 2 1/2 people working for every person collecting. Our government has bought votes by expanding benefits without enough increase in social security tax. It is not just the democrats or just the republicans. Bush (R) added prescription coverage with no additional funding. OBAMA (D) added subsidies for Obamacare and to the surprise of far too many citizens, SOCIAL SECURITY HOLDS 42% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. While we/I did not agree to this LOAN, the loan was made with NO STATED INTEREST RATE OR TIME THAT THE LOAN IS TO BE REPAID.
Typical of any government, our government will not HONESTLY tell us what is going on-THEY WILL SNEAK IT IN. We just qualified for medicare. REMINDER, WE PAID IN WHATEVER THE TOP RATES WERE. Now we get to pay TWICE the minimum for medicare AND WE HAVE NO INFLATION PROTECTION.
Reminder Social Security holds 42% of the national debt. Obama added TEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt. First of all stop and THINK-do you have any idea what TEN TRILLION DOLLARS IS? Our countries GDP (gross domestic product) in 2016 was EIGHTEEN TRILLION dollars. OUR NATIOAL DEBT IS TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. THE UNITED STATES IS BY DEFINITION BANKRUPT.

[autumnspring]

Population of the US = 324,443,471
Today's work force = 152,262,046

When you have less people working than taking, what do you think is happening to the Social Security fund? That's not saying that everyone that is not working is receiving SS, but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you.

As your income goes up you pay more into social security but, as you pay more your benefit for every dollar you are forced to pay in is far less.
Many people do not realize or perhaps do not want to realize that if you work for someone else your employer matches every dollar you send to social security with and equal dollar. That matching dollar is actually tax free income to you.
That is the reason why many businesses hire self employed contractors-they do not pay social security for these people. As an employee you paid 7% into social security. I was self employed and paid 13%. At a certain income level, the money you receive above that is free of any further payment to social security. Were they watching me?????? Every time I made that top figure and received some income free of the 13% Social Security tax
THE GOVERNMENT RAISED THE CEILING THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

[MDLNB]

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.


Ha, ha, ha.....you are speaking of HIS deficit right? Do you even understand what a deficit is? He decreased how large the bill is OVER the budget. Of course, he didn't have a budget but we won't go there. Deficit spending is spending above your means. To say that you lowered your deficit, you should be embarrassed and ashamed. There should not be ANY deficit. There should be a balanced budget and then even spend less than the incoming revenues so that you can pay down on the national debt. No president has paid down on the National Debt since Eisenhower.

[dirtbanker]

Ha, ha, ha.....you are speaking of HIS deficit right?
Please forgive my clerical error, I meant to type "debt". Needed more coffee this morning, late night at bingo...Thanks for bringing it to my attension.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[MDLNB]

Please forgive my clerical error, I meant to type "debt". Needed more coffee this morning, late night at bingo...Thanks for bringing it to my attension.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

No need to apologize on that. My response was a bit abrupt and a knee jerk reaction to a pet peeve regarding deficit versus debt. I am the one that was unfair in my reply.

[Paper1]

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.

To be kind I have to say your head is in the sand. I suspect I have as good or better understanding of basic economics as you have. Why don't you stop using Sean Hannity and Lou Dobb's talking points and use your own brain. Again Obama could not spend a cent without congress. If my memory serves me correct my republicans gave him everything he wanted rather than put their jobs on line. Tell that Obama line of bull to someone else in this forum.

[Paper1]

You are on the right track in your thinking.

It does appear that spending is now the name of the game, although that is a bit unfair, but still have no heard a word about anything but spending. In addition, our newest drama with Mexico could cost a few bucks.

So keep your eye on the spending which is my second biggest concern (our foreign affairs being first) but there is a glimmer of hope.....House Social Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, R-Texas has introduced legislation aimed at exactly what you speak of and to try and do it with no harm on current recepeints,

The link below will lead you to some details, etc but basically, Rep Johnson proposes raising the retirement age to 69.

In addition, ranking Democratic member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. John Larson is also introducing legislation to raise the payroll tax cap on Social Security contributions, which would have a major impact.

Even without the obvious new spending, this needs to be done.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/social-security-can-survive-without-benefit-cuts.html

If no one attempts to correct the path to depletion of our SS, the first thing that will happen (legally) will be the lowering of the monthly payout. Meaning, each recipient will get a lower check each month. There is a provision for this in the SS regs, so don't act surprised when it happens. Republicans want to do something to sustain SS, while the left wants to ignore the cliff that is approaching fast. It's not all gloom and doom, just fact that it is either fixed or we do without, period.

Thanks for a civil answer, if you're not careful an intelligent exchange of ideas might happen on this forum.

[MDLNB]

Thanks for a civil answer, if you're not careful an intelligent exchange of ideas might happen on this forum.

Uh oh, it must have been a lapse.

[Don Baldwin]

If no one attempts to correct the path to depletion of our SS, the first thing that will happen (legally) will be the lowering of the monthly payout. Meaning, each recipient will get a lower check each month. There is a provision for this in the SS regs, so don't act surprised when it happens. Republicans want to do something to sustain SS, while the left wants to ignore the cliff that is approaching fast. It's not all gloom and doom, just fact that it is either fixed or we do without, period.

You'll get your SS...IF the country hasn't collapsed by then from the drain of welfare...it just won't be worth anything. Greenspan said that. I added the collapse part.

You CAN'T add everyone to SS. Disability doesn't belong under SS. Disability payments are swelling.

"Over the past two decades, the share of total Social Security spending accounted for by DI has risen from 10 percent to 17 percent. In 2005, cash payments to DI beneficiaries topped $85 Billion. DI recipients are also eligible for Medicare two years after the onset of their disability, further boosting the cost of the program.

In The Growth in the Social Security Disability Rolls: A Fiscal Crisis Unfolding (NBER Working Paper 12436), research-ers David Autor and Mark Duggan explore both the causes and consequences of the recent growth in the DI program."

The Growth in the Social Security Disability Insurance Rolls (http://www.nber.org/bah/fall06/w12436.html)



To be kind I have to say your head is in the sand. I suspect I have as good or better understanding of basic economics as you have. Why don't you stop using Sean Hannity and Lou Dobb's talking points and use your own brain. Again Obama could not spend a cent without congress. If my memory serves me correct my republicans gave him everything he wanted rather than put their jobs on line. Tell that Obama line of bull to someone else in this forum.

That is COMPLETELY untrue...

Read the PDF it talks about the presidents ability to spend money without Congress approval.

Title : Who Holds the Purse Strings? The President's Authority to Spend Money Without Congressional Authorization

Who Holds the Purse Strings? The President's Authority to Spend Money Without Congressional Authorization (http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA440630)

The president can wage WAR for 60 days without Congressional approval. Doesn't that cost money? It costs a LOT of money to deploy equipment and troops.

"1973 War Powers Act. That law, passed at the height of the Vietnam War, serves as a constitutional check on the president's power to declare war without congressional consent. It requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of military action and limits the use of military forces to no more than 60 days unless Congress authorizes force or declares war."

Can Obama Wage War Without the Consent of Congress? | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/12/can-obama-wage-war-without-the-consent-of-congress.html)

Stop making stuff up or blindly repeating what you've heard somewhere. MOST of it is untrue. The president can run the country, spend what's needed to do it, AS LONG as it's been previously approved BY LAW. Continuing operations can continue without re-appropriation.

The president can't approve NEW spending, he can't say I want this new program/agency...and shazam he gets it...Congress must approve all NEW spending.

[dirtbanker]

To be kind I have to say your head is in the sand. I suspect I have as good or better understanding of basic economics as you have. Why don't you stop using Sean Hannity and Lou Dobb's talking points and use your own brain. Again Obama could not spend a cent without congress. If my memory serves me correct my republicans gave him everything he wanted rather than put their jobs on line. Tell that Obama line of bull to someone else in this forum.

Don't waste you effort being kind while you disagree with me, I don't care about that stuff. Thanks!

I don't look to Hannity or Dobbs for my talking points.
Your memory has failed you as congress has been practically at a partisan standstill for years. In fact Obamma complained he could not get enough done because of it, and that is the reason the Dems are preaching they will be returning the favor...

I believe someone already provided data on Obamma spending without congress approval...

[ColdNoMore]

Population of the US = 324,443,471
Today's work force = 152,262,046

When you have less people working than taking, what do you think is happening to the Social Security fund? That's not saying that everyone that is not working is receiving SS, but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you.

Umm, you do realize that 'TOTAL POPULATION OF THE US'...includes children and the very old, right? :oops:

With ignorance like this...we are so screwed. :ohdear:

[MDLNB]

Umm, you do realize that 'TOTAL POPULATION OF THE US'...includes children and the very old, right? :oops:

With ignorance like this...we are so screwed. :ohdear:

I guess I did not make it simple enough for you. If you would have read the whole comment, you would have seen that I did not in any way claim that everyone received SS. Wow, this is really your all time low as far as arguing for the sake of arguing. How you ever thought of seeking some professional help?
This is me being as civil as I can.

[MDLNB]

Not in work force = 95,185,265

Not in work force includes all persons of working age that are either unemployed, or not seeking employment for some reason.

[rubicon]

Not in work force = 95,185,265

Not in work force includes all persons of working age that are either unemployed, or not seeking employment for some reason.

and don't forget the gov't never speaks to the issue of those who simply disappear from any statistics because they simply have been dropped from any gov't category

Personal Best Regards:

[ColdNoMore]

I guess I did not make it simple enough for you. If you would have read the whole comment, you would have seen that I did not in any way claim that everyone received SS. Wow, this is really your all time low as far as arguing for the sake of arguing. How you ever thought of seeking some professional help?
This is me being as civil as I can.

Nice try at obfuscating and trying to wriggle out of your ignorant post. :ohdear:

You stated... "...but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you..." and then use the TOTAL population of the US to try and make your point.

Given your cultist status of Trump, it's not all that surprising that you tried to mislead (as Chump does), but you really should calm down and quit whining so much...when you get caught. :wave:

[MDLNB]

Nice try at obfuscating and trying to wriggle out of your ignorant post. :ohdear:

You stated... "...but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you..." and then use the TOTAL population of the US to try and make your point.

Given your cultist status of Trump, it's not all that surprising that you tried to mislead (as Chump does), but you really should calm down and quit whining so much...when you get caught. :wave:

It is not my fault that you have a reading comprehension problem. That is between you and your liberal teacher.

[biker1]

Yes, you are correct. The "Trust Fund" is an IOU from the Treasury Department to the Social Security Administration. The IOU represents Social Security tax collected in excess of benefits paid plus interest on the excess. The excess was spent as the Government can only invest in itself via Treasury Bills. As such, there are no actual dollars in the fund - it is just a promise from Treasury to provide money to pay benefits and this money may come from borrowing on the global markets. This may, of course, require raising the debt ceiling. The reason for all of this is that the Government can't "invest" money like you and I can, say in ownership of a company via stock. The Government is it's own bank and lends itself money when it is convenient to do so, which is what the Trust Fund is.

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

[Don Baldwin]

Yes, you are correct. The "Trust Fund" is an IOU from the Treasury Department to the Social Security Administration. The IOU represents Social Security tax collected in excess of benefits paid plus interest on the excess. The excess was spent as the Government can only invest in itself via Treasury Bills. As such, there are no actual dollars in the fund - it is just a promise from Treasury to provide money to pay benefits and this money may come from borrowing on the global markets. This may, of course, require raising the debt ceiling. The reason for all of this is that the Government can't "invest" money like you and I can, say in ownership of a company via stock. The Government is it's own bank and lends itself money when it is convenient to do so, which is what the Trust Fund is.

Ever see the movie "Dumb and Dumber"?

The government is the two guys, the SS "trust fund" is the briefcase, the "government" realizing that it was full of money, "borrowed" it, leaving "good as gold IOUs", used the actual money ONLY for necessities. Now it's all gone and they borrow (part of the $20 trillion) to pay SS recipients.

The Fed creates "money" as credit to the banks/government. It's nothing more than a computer entry. Nothing physically backs it up. No gold, no silver, no assets. It's called "fiat currency" and it's literally nothing but a computer entry or piece of paper with no value other than the faith that everyone else will accept it has value.

[dillywho]

RE: Social Security
Government hoodwinking the population is not at all new. When first sold to the people it was stated as savings plan and you would withdraw YOUR MONEY in the future. That never was the case. New money is TAKEN from people working to pay out to people collecting. When, first established there were aprox 11 people working for every person collecting today because of us, a trmendous bubble of population going through, there are only 2 1/2 people working for every person collecting. Our government has bought votes by expanding benefits without enough increase in social security tax. It is not just the democrats or just the republicans. Bush (R) added prescription coverage with no additional funding. OBAMA (D) added subsidies for Obamacare and to the surprise of far too many citizens, SOCIAL SECURITY HOLDS 42% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. While we/I did not agree to this LOAN, the loan was made with NO STATED INTEREST RATE OR TIME THAT THE LOAN IS TO BE REPAID.
Typical of any government, our government will not HONESTLY tell us what is going on-THEY WILL SNEAK IT IN. We just qualified for medicare. REMINDER, WE PAID IN WHATEVER THE TOP RATES WERE. Now we get to pay TWICE the minimum for medicare AND WE HAVE NO INFLATION PROTECTION.
Reminder Social Security holds 42% of the national debt. Obama added TEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt. First of all stop and THINK-do you have any idea what TEN TRILLION DOLLARS IS? Our countries GDP (gross domestic product) in 2016 was EIGHTEEN TRILLION dollars. OUR NATIOAL DEBT IS TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. THE UNITED STATES IS BY DEFINITION BANKRUPT.

It was the case until Lyndon Johnson in 1964 started using from it to pay for the Viet Nam war. He replaced those funds with IOU's to be repaid after the war. Well, it turned out to be such a great cash cow, that never came to fruition. Then along comes Reagan and decides that it needs to be taxed.

It was set up as a Trust Fund and to be used only for the stated purpose of supplementing, not becoming the full retirement, retirement in our later years. Had they left it alone, there would be more than enough for everyone, even those still paying into it today with no need to raise contributions on employees or employers. It is not a Government Benefit to be doled out however they see fit to us. We are supposed to be able to make withdrawals from the contributions; it is not a "handout". Think of all the funds that come into it that are never drawn out because people don't live long enough to withdraw, and there is no inheritance.

Yes, it is a DEBT which they owe everyone who has or will contribute. Johnson started BORROWING from it. When you borrow, it is a debt. We just need to find out how to foreclose on that debt.

[Don Baldwin]

It was the case until Lyndon Johnson in 1964 started using from it to pay for the Viet Nam war. He replaced those funds with IOU's to be repaid after the war. Well, it turned out to be such a great cash cow, that never came to fruition. Then along comes Reagan and decides that it needs to be taxed.

It was set up as a Trust Fund and to be used only for the stated purpose of supplementing, not becoming the full retirement, retirement in our later years. Had they left it alone, there would be more than enough for everyone, even those still paying into it today with no need to raise contributions on employees or employers. It is not a Government Benefit to be doled out however they see fit to us. We are supposed to be able to make withdrawals from the contributions; it is not a "handout". Think of all the funds that come into it that are never drawn out because people don't live long enough to withdraw, and there is no inheritance.

Yes, it is a DEBT which they owe everyone who has or will contribute. Johnson started BORROWING from it. When you borrow, it is a debt. We just need to find out how to foreclose on that debt.

Borrow ANOTHER $10 trillion...that's how they'll pay us.

[biker1]

That is not exactly true. SS is a "pay as you go" program. There is no ability to save/invest money - the Trust Fund is simply an accounting of what was collected (and spent in the general fund) in excess of benefits paid. SS will need to collect more taxes as there are fewer people working per beneficiary as well as borrow money on the global markets (to the tune of the size of the Trust Fund).

It was the case until Lyndon Johnson in 1964 started using from it to pay for the Viet Nam war. He replaced those funds with IOU's to be repaid after the war. Well, it turned out to be such a great cash cow, that never came to fruition. Then along comes Reagan and decides that it needs to be taxed.

It was set up as a Trust Fund and to be used only for the stated purpose of supplementing, not becoming the full retirement, retirement in our later years. Had they left it alone, there would be more than enough for everyone, even those still paying into it today with no need to raise contributions on employees or employers. It is not a Government Benefit to be doled out however they see fit to us. We are supposed to be able to make withdrawals from the contributions; it is not a "handout". Think of all the funds that come into it that are never drawn out because people don't live long enough to withdraw, and there is no inheritance.

Yes, it is a DEBT which they owe everyone who has or will contribute. Johnson started BORROWING from it. When you borrow, it is a debt. We just need to find out how to foreclose on that debt.

[biker1]

Not really true. The program has always been "pay as you go". The SS taxes collected from you do not exist in an account with your name written on it. An act of Congress can take away your monthly benefit.

It was the case until Lyndon Johnson in 1964 started using from it to pay for the Viet Nam war. He replaced those funds with IOU's to be repaid after the war. Well, it turned out to be such a great cash cow, that never came to fruition. Then along comes Reagan and decides that it needs to be taxed.

It was set up as a Trust Fund and to be used only for the stated purpose of supplementing, not becoming the full retirement, retirement in our later years. Had they left it alone, there would be more than enough for everyone, even those still paying into it today with no need to raise contributions on employees or employers. It is not a Government Benefit to be doled out however they see fit to us. We are supposed to be able to make withdrawals from the contributions; it is not a "handout". Think of all the funds that come into it that are never drawn out because people don't live long enough to withdraw, and there is no inheritance.

Yes, it is a DEBT which they owe everyone who has or will contribute. Johnson started BORROWING from it. When you borrow, it is a debt. We just need to find out how to foreclose on that debt.