Congress considers changes to SS...hey SPEED open your eyes!!

Grace Slick and "Be a Head"


Please read SR's response - and take a lesson in cogent and constructive posting - Originally Posted by oeb11

Wrong.

That’s not what he said.

Meanwhile, I suggest you quite whining about everything everybody writes and practice what you bitch about.

You're so right speed...without bloated and massive over spending of Gumment where would we all be.
MUCH BETTER OFF!! Originally Posted by bb1961

Social Security is NOT government spending. When I get my monthly Social Security deposit, it is MY money being returned to me.

The OP is about Social Security not government spending. You should know since you started the thread.

SR - I wish you were correct - technically You are Correct
Politicians on both sides have dipped into the SS funds and diverted the funds - They look at the pot as "Theri Money " to spend on pork and Graft.

Politicians have stolen "Our Money" - It should be a Crime and Politicians should be prosecuted for the Theft.

Social Security is NOT government spending. When I get my monthly Social Security deposit, it is MY money being returned to me. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Kind of, like when someone cashed out of Bernie Madoff's fund. Part of that money was theirs. And part consisted of fictitious returns, funded by newer participants in Bernie's Ponzi scheme.

The social security trust fund has around $3 trillion. From memory, discounted, unfunded liabilities are north of 20 trillion. I don't remember the discount rate or time that's over, but in any event, you'll get more out of social security than what you paid in plus the government's return on the part of your social security payments that went into the trust fund. Nevergaveitathought, who understands this better than I do, says the money to pay social security comes through taxes and higher government debt:

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...04&postcount=4

The average return on social security for people paying in now is around 6% or 7%. When you've got a small fraction of the amount needed to pay amounts "owed," and you're getting around a 1.5% to 2.5% return on that small fraction (the trust fund would be invested in low yielding government securities), and you're delivering a 6% or 7% return to your investors, it's a Ponzi scheme.

SR - I wish you were correct - technically You are Correct
Politicians on both sides have dipped into the SS funds and diverted the funds - They look at the pot as "Theri Money " to spend on pork and Graft.

Politicians have stolen "Our Money" - It should be a Crime and Politicians should be prosecuted for the Theft. Originally Posted by oeb11

I am open for discussion as to whether or not Social Security funds have been borrowed from. I thought that to be true, and I thought the borrowed money was being paid back, but some articles suggest I am incorrect:

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/l...4-bcc7a95a30f0

"But one of the most prevalent myths these days is that the federal government is stealing from Social Security. It goes something like this: The President and/or Congress have been raiding the Social Security Old Age and Survivor's trust fund (also known as the retirement trust fund) to pay for other federal expenses (tanks, roads, bridges, food stamps, etc.) and have never paid it back. The myth, which persists today, goes back at least 50 years and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security's finances."


https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/opini...man/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lets-de...security-myth/

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019...cial-secu.aspx

Why would it bother you if they raise SS taxable income to $400,000?



Like most trumpys, you want to throw out major programs without replacements or a plan for dealing with the aftermath.
Or you're willing to hand out a huge tax decrease mostly for the upper 5% but whine about a 1.2 % SS tax increase over the course of 23 years[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You don't understand how it works. People wouldn't pay any social security tax on amounts earned between $132,000 and $400,000. And those making over $400,000 would be saddled with an extra 14.8% tax on income, bringing the total Federal marginal tax rate including the Obamacare tax to 55.6% for the self employed and for investment income. For salary income, the taxpayer would only have a 48.2% marginal rate, with his employer bearing the other 7.4%. If you live in California add 13.3% state income tax to all that.

Huge tax decrease my ass. That's a tax increase. The USA already has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

Kind of, like when someone cashed out of Bernie Madoff's fund. Part of that money was theirs. And part consisted of fictitious returns, funded by newer participants in Bernie's Ponzi scheme.

The social security trust fund has around $3 trillion. From memory, discounted, unfunded liabilities are north of 20 trillion. I don't remember the discount rate or time that's over, but in any event, you'll get more out of social security than what you paid in plus the government's return on the part of your social security payments that went into the trust fund. Nevergaveitathought, who understands this better than I do, says the money to pay social security comes through taxes and higher government debt:

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...04&postcount=4

The average return on social security for people paying in now is around 6% or 7%. When you've got a small fraction of the amount needed to pay amounts "owed," and you're getting around a 1.5% to 2.5% return on that small fraction (the trust fund would be invested in low yielding government securities) and are delivering a 6% or 7% return, it's a Ponzi scheme. Originally Posted by Tiny

In my opinion, to be a TRUE Ponzi scheme, the person or persons at the top are intentionally screwing others. The Federal government does not benefit from running this Social Security Ponzi scheme. No one is making money off of others. And it is highly likely I will get more money out of this than I put into it.

In my opinion, to be a TRUE Ponzi scheme, the person or persons at the top are intentionally screwing others. The Federal government does not benefit from running this Social Security Ponzi scheme. No one is making money off of others. And it is highly likely I will get more money out of this than I put into it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Watch American Greed. There are many people, including Madoff, who ran Ponzi schemes and led relatively frugal lives compared to the amount of money they raised. Yes, it is highly likely you'll get more out than you put in, as the merry go around is unlikely to stop until you're dead or a lot older. Others however will pay in the form of higher taxes, and perhaps a debased currency if the government starts printing money to meet its obligations.

In my opinion, to be a TRUE Ponzi scheme, the person or persons at the top are intentionally screwing others. The Federal government does not benefit from running this Social Security Ponzi scheme. No one is making money off of others. And it is highly likely I will get more money out of this than I put into it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

What do you call taking money from one to pay another? Then after you don't have enough money to pay the ones that were the first to pay in? The ponzi scheme crashes when eventually there isn't enough money pay the initial investors...lipstick on a pig
You want to bet that you'll get more money than you paid in to SS if you collect for another 20 to 25 yrs. YOUR SADLY MISTAKEN...you won't take that bet SPEED!!

What do you call taking money from one to pay another? Then after you don't have enough money to pay the ones that were the first to pay in? The ponzi scheme crashes when eventually there isn't enough money pay the initial investors...lipstick on a pig
You want to bet that you'll get more money than you paid in to SS if you collect for another 25 to 30 yrs. YOUR SADLY MISTAKEN...you won't take that bet SPEED!! Originally Posted by bb1961

I did not say it was not a Ponzi scheme. What I said it differed from what people normally think of as a Ponzi scheme:

"Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors."

"a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"

Social Security in no way meets that definition.

I have not taken the time to sit down and figure out at what point in time I would reach the point at which I have received more money from Social Security than I put into it. Social Security benefits are based upon actuarial estimates. I think the estimate is that I will die when I am about 80. I assume that my break-even point for SS is about at that point in time. If I live longer I will get more money out than I paid in.

I won't be around, in all likelihood, in another 30 years so I can't take you up on your bet. I will say that I have every reason to believe that I will get more back from SS than I put in. According to the following little test, I will live to be 97.

https://www.blueprintincome.com/tool...g-will-i-live/

a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"

If that doesn't define SS nothing does...thanks speed!!

First you're dead at 80 then it's 97??
I understand your thinking...

I think the estimate is that I will die when I am about 80.
According to the following little test, I will live to be 97.

a classic Ponzi scheme built on treachery and lies"

If that doesn't define SS nothing does...thanks speed!!

First you're dead at 80 then it's 97??
I understand your thinking...

I think the estimate is that I will die when I am about 80.
According to the following little test, I will live to be 97. Originally Posted by bb1961

Typical BB responses. Total lack of comprehension skills.

I said life expectancy for me, based on my simply being a male, is about 80. When you factor into it other tangibles such as life style and demographics, this one website estimated my personal life expectancy much higher.

Total lack of comprehension skills. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Have you looked in the mirror lately...
As I said the left has a terrible lack of self-awareness.
You always look down on others...were you born that way or was it a learned trait??
I'm just pointing out where wishy washy is a way of life with you!!

Social Security is NOT government spending. When I get my monthly Social Security deposit, it is MY money being returned to me.

The OP is about Social Security not government spending. You should know since you started the thread. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Right now maybe it is your money, but as you said yourself somewhere here along the line, I can find it if you wish, that you hoped you would be taking more from the system than you put in.

And the system is engineered to pay out to more people and in many cases more than was ever paid into it due to spousal/child/etc. benefits.

Then add the SS disability fund which comes largely from the same "pot" and you are paying out even additional people who never paid in or paid pennies on the dollar of what they receive.

Right now maybe it is your money, but as you said yourself somewhere here along the line, I can find it if you wish, that you hoped you would be taking more from the system than you put in.

And the system is engineered to pay out to more people and in many cases more than was ever paid into it due to spousal/child/etc. benefits.

Then add the SS disability fund which comes largely from the same "pot" and you are paying out even additional people who never paid in or paid pennies on the dollar of what they receive. Originally Posted by eccielover

Yes, it is not a perfect system. Many people will die before they take out what they've put in. That money disappears into the system. Everyone hopes to live past the break even point in Social Security. I certainly do.

Social Security reserves in 2018 were $2.9 trillion. So after working very well since its inception 1935, why is there an anticipated problem 100 years later?

The Problem

So what's the problem? Basically, demographics.

Americans are having fewer children and living longer, both of which contribute to an aging population. Baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) are retiring at a record pace: more than 14% of the population is age 65 (the earliest retirement age at which you can collect full benefits) and over, and by 2080, it is estimated to be 23%. At the same time, the working-age population will be getting smaller, from about 60% today to 54% in 2080.

These trends result in declining worker-to-beneficiary ratios: As we move forward, there will be fewer people putting money into the Social Security system and more people taking money out. Because of these factors, it has been estimated that all the money in the Social Security "bank account" will be exhausted in 2035, when it will have only about 77% of what it should pay out that year. That means that without any changes to the system, if you're in your forties or fifties today, you could conceivably not receive Social Security benefits during retirement, even though you're paying into the system now.

It's difficult to blame the originators of Social Security for failing to anticipate the Baby Boom after WW II. the decrease in birth rates today, or how much longer people would be living today.

The fact remains that the majority of people who receive Social Security know how important it is to their lives. Approximately 50% of our family income comes from Social Security. For some it is their sole income source.