Social Security Trust Fund runs out in 17 years

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things Social Security Trust Fund runs out in 17 years

This topic contains 8 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Andy Brown 1 week, 2 days ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30606

    Master of Disaster
    Participant

    And Medicare runs out of money in 12:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/social-security-trust-fund-will-depleted-17-years-according-trustees-report/

    (Article is the first Bing Search result, there are many others.)

    Of course, ask the ultracons and they’ll tell you that ‘both programs are merely handouts to people that should have instead taken more initiative’ or ‘the government should operate like a business’ or whatever, or will change the subject.

    The Master of Disaster thinks it’s long past time to stop raiding the trust funds, eliminate the Social Security earnings cap, and perhaps find innovative sources of benefits funding, such as increased excise taxes across a broader range of goods and services. (Whereby one can merely not purchase a product/service and save money.)

    #30608

    Langston
    Participant

    Who here is old enough to remember the Luxury Tax?

    #30609

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    The Vitalogy has been saying this for years. Drop the SS tax rate, eliminate the income cap, and tax all income not just not earned income. Problem solved.

    #30610

    Amus
    Participant

    Starve the Beast

    The Republican tactic to kill programs they hate (because the help the general public instead of the very wealthy) by creating a funding crisis.

    #30611

    Andrew
    Participant

    The “trust fund” is SUPPOSED TO “RUN OUT.”

    It was never a part of the original Social Security Act. The original idea was that current workers would pay for current retirees, with more workers always entering the workforce and paying more in taxes as people retired; with a streadily growing population, you’d always have more workers added than people retiring.

    But the population growth isn’t always linear. The “baby boomers” were one such aberration in growth rate. Planners foresaw a slowing rate of new workers replacing baby boomers once they retired. Social Security wouldn’t be able to pay out the benefits from the taxes of current workers – it would be in deficit.

    The solution (co-produced by Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil) was the “trust fund:” raise payroll tax rates on the boomers (and everyone) early, make them “pre-pay” for their retirement benefits, instead of having big tax increases on future workers later. This also provided a neat solution to “borrow” the big surplus in payroll taxes to make federal deficits look smaller.

    If workers had died off exactly as predicted, if social security costs had risen exactly as predicted in the 1980s, then when the last one died, the last penny of the “trust fund” would be paid out, and, in theory the 1980s tax rate increase could revert to the lower rate. Of course, people are living longer than expected and costs have risen more.

    The solution is pretty easy: raise payroll taxes again once Social Security goes back into deficit. It’s not like this is some major crisis with no easy solution. Just common sense.

    If you raise or eliminate the “cap” on earnings, would you also raise or eliminate the “cap” on benefits?

    #30618

    The “easy solution” puts an unjust burden on younger workers who must support an ever-increasing number of non workers.

    It’s funded in a way that we would all think is pretty shady if we did it in our private finances.

    I believe in the beginning it was meant to help the destitute elderly and not be some kind of retirement program, but it’s become an “entitlement” or “welfare for the elderly.”

    It would be nice to see it go back to what was originally intended and have that welfare program in place for the very needy and for the rest of us to fund our retirements privately (or work).

    #30620

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    It’s insurance, not a retirement program you douche.

    I know many people who only have SS income. You’ll be one of them too someday.

    #30621

    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “I believe in the beginning it was meant to help the destitute elderly”

    History, another subject bacon knows absofuckinglutely nothing about. What a moron. Your post in this thread is patently offensive. Very offensive. Offensive enough to tell you that you are a fucking ignoramus. The history of SS started way before SS itself as a pension plan for the military survivors of the Civil War, not the “destitute elderly” you idiot. Do you always speak like you post, without any thought to what you are saying/writing? Do you ever look things up? I didn’t think so. Pathetic loser that you are, I really hope you continue this spiral down into offensiveness because it will enable the board members to have thrown out of here for the 8th time. Keep it up, asshole.

    Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America’s history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America’s ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America’s various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)

    #30622

    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “I believe in the beginning it was meant to help the destitute elderly”

    History, another subject bacon knows absofuckinglutely nothing about. What a moron. Your post in this thread is patently offensive. Very offensive. Offensive enough to tell you that you are a fucking ignoramus. The history of SS started way before SS itself as a pension plan for the military survivors of the Civil War, not the “destitute elderly” you idiot. Do you always speak like you post, without any thought to what you are saying/writing? Do you ever look things up? I didn’t think so. Pathetic loser that you are, I really hope you continue this spiral down into offensiveness because it will enable the board members to have you thrown out of here for the 8th time. Keep it up, asshole.

    Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America’s history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America’s ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America’s various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.