works for me ... increasing ss payroll tax adds $ to the trust ... people shouldnt bitch if they have any intention of collecting ss checks later in life ..
Originally Posted by CJ7
I'm in agreement with you with the emphasis on "trust" ... if one works for a company that has a "retirement plan" for which one went to work based on that "benefit" and remained with the company for a sufficient period of time to "vest" in the benefits, which were matched by the company as consistent with the plan (or insert "union" for "company"), and it was discovered that the "administrators" of the plan were "loaning" money from the plan to the company/union in exchange for promissory notes, which the company/union was unable to repay because the "board members" of the company/union had been pissing off the money for their "pet projects" or for whatever reason ... then the company/union/plan administrator began to make noises about reducing benefits, no benefits, and increasing personal contributions to make up the "shortfall" ... things would begin to take on a somewhat different "tone" than .....
".. makes sense to me."
Things like prison, prosecution, restitution would creep in.
Think "Enron" ...
.... although I agree that was a somewhat different scenario ....having to do with stock in the company being sold or optioned to employees on a misrepresentation of its value.
We always have to keep in mind that social security was
never intended to be a ...
.. "retirement plan" ... but that does not absolve Congress for raiding
the fund.
A problem today in the discussion is so many people lump
social security with "disability" and those are two distinct programs, and funds from social security are not to be used for "disability" ... the same as so many people get
medicare and "medicaid" confused or used in the same sentence as though they were one and the same.
If Congress wants to fund a Federal "disability" program or a "medicaid" program then Congress needs to bite the political bullet and fund those programs without dipping into the social security and/or medicare TRUST FUNDS to finance them.
Again, like I said: The banker claiming he works for a $50 billion bank is bullshit ...
90% of the the time the desk he sits behind is rented, as well as the chair he sits in, the building is rented, the fault is leased, the bank has little, if any
assets, and without "errors and omissions" or "general liability insurance" is judgment proof.
The "deposits" of the bank to make the "$50 billion bank" ARE OWED TO CUSTOMERS!
That's not an ASSET.
Neither are the IOU's left behind by Congress "on the books" of the social security "trust fund"! It's just that, an IOU, purchased by an "investor" who can cash it in some day with interest.
