Musk targets Social Security with blatant misinformation

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I wasn't aware that people who have an ITIN number pay taxes.

Non-citizens working in the county legally have to have ITIN and they have to file. If they earn enough, they have to pay. I believe they do not pay into social security. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, John Drake said:

 

This says they do: 

 

Thanks for the correction. I was thinking that because they can't hold a regular job in the States, that they wouldn't be liable for taxes.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, placeholder said:

And what's that got to do with the social security trust fund? Are you back on to the issues that you criticize me for addressing? You know, the issues that you originally raised.

I was responding to you when you said: 

"Do you read what you write? You're the one who threw in the bit about illegal aliens not paying for health care and all that stuff. If you want to confine it to social security payments, the payments illegal aliens make into social security are definitely a net plus for the government. As for the rest of your nonsense, it's what you usually resort to when you have nothing to offer which is virtually always. Come on, for a change link to something that actually backs up what you claim."

 

Now you're howling for me providing the link you asked for that backs up my claim that illegal aliens cost taxpayers more than they contribute. 

 

Significantly more. 

[Patong2021]

6 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Currently no income taxes(except the tax on SS benefits) go towards social security benefits.  I am not positive about the benefits in the early years of SS but for decades already the benefits are funded completely by those who contributed.  There is no "topping up" by taxpayers and there is no "excess" that SS recipients are spending.

 

There is no transfer of income tax dollars to SS and also no transfer of SS funds to general federal government revenue streams.

 

Before the boomers started retiring, the SS trust fund grew every year.  It was earning interest at the same rate as the Treasury bills that are sold to investors.

 

 

Please note that Social Security as of 2020 has been paying out more than it has collected from deductions and other revenue .

The difference is taken from the trust funds that are intended to support the  program in the future. In effect, eating into the assets that were to support future payments.

Prior to 2020,   there were 11 years in which benefits paid out exceeded income and so the assets of the Trust Funds had to be spent to make up the difference. This cashing-in of the Trust Fund bonds amounted to about $26 billion in those 11 years.

 

As long as the current  payments are not being paid for by the initial investments and their  income generated, and the deficiency is addressed by cashing trust funds paid by other contributors (through their payroll taxes and mandatory deductions) then it can be said that the taxpayers are supporting social security. This is because the money that is intended to support those contributors future payments is being directed to pay current obligations.

 

Note too that the he Social Security trust funds are limited by law to investing their reserves in U.S. government debt. The debt is guaranteed by the US taxpayer.  The US government and the population  access are ready made pool of  money at a competitive interest rate. Sweet deal for the USA. Not so sweet for many SS contributors who earn a lower rate of return through this investment requirement than had the money been invested in a conventional manner.

[still kicking]

Yeah, you're living the good life while taking jobs and the livelihood of thousands and thousands and thousands of people without notice. That's definitely worth running around on the stage with a chainsaw. You say you're chopping bureaucracy but you're not showing any receipts and transparency. The statements you've made and the charts that you have shown are definitely not proof of anything. Although your money has bought you through this and through that and the other, this is where you will definitely be blocked along with your money.

[gamb00ler]

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

then it can be said that the taxpayers are supporting social security.

No... that cannot be said.  Simple facts show that your notion is incorrect.  Only the empoyer's and employee's FICA taxes are supporting SS benefits.  It's been that way by law since the inception of SS.

 

By current law, the revenue from federal income taxes cannot now or in the future be used to prop up the SS trust fund.  That's why the current projections warn that SS benefits will need to be reduced when the SS trust fund is exhausted.  At that point SSA will only be able to pay out as much as it takes in.  

[gamb00ler]

On 2/20/2025 at 1:11 AM, Patong2021 said:

Canada will not pay the supplemental Old Age Security guaranteed income to non residents.

Canada does pay regular OAS benefits to non-residents.  It will be prorated based on how long they lived in Canada.  Your statement only applies to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and to the rare extra benefits such as the one issued during COVID.

 

Technically, the Canadian GIS is a separate benefit from the Old Age Supplement.  Unlike the OAS, the GIS is not taxable.

[jimmybcool]

5 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

No... that cannot be said.  Simple facts show that your notion is incorrect.  Only the empoyer's and employee's FICA taxes are supporting SS benefits.  It's been that way by law since the inception of SS.

 

By current law, the revenue from federal income taxes cannot now or in the future be used to prop up the SS trust fund.  That's why the current projections warn that SS benefits will need to be reduced when the SS trust fund is exhausted.  At that point SSA will only be able to pay out as much as it takes in.  

I have no idea if what you say is true.  I will accept it as so.  Since congress can change anything I seriously doubt there will come a time when they allow reduced SS payments because current FICA taxes don't cover them.  That would be political suicide. 

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

I have no idea if what you say is true.  I will accept it as so.  Since congress can change anything I seriously doubt there will come a time when they allow reduced SS payments because current FICA taxes don't cover them.  That would be political suicide. 

I agree that Congress needs to change the SS funding laws... but lately bipartisan agreement rarely happens.  I think the most reasonable solutions that have been offered only attempt to increase the SS revenue without cutting benefits.

[Yellowtail]

32 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I agree that Congress needs to change the SS funding laws... but lately bipartisan agreement rarely happens.  I think the most reasonable solutions that have been offered only attempt to increase the SS revenue without cutting benefits.

If Trump is very successful with the DOGE program, the economy is strong, and Vance wins in 2028 and holds the House and Senate, we might see something. 

[Patong2021]

On 2/21/2025 at 6:48 PM, gamb00ler said:

Canada does pay regular OAS benefits to non-residents.  It will be prorated based on how long they lived in Canada.  Your statement only applies to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and to the rare extra benefits such as the one issued during COVID.

 

Technically, the Canadian GIS is a separate benefit from the Old Age Supplement.  Unlike the OAS, the GIS is not taxable.

 

You seem so focused on trying to show me up that you are ignoring what I wrote;

Canada will not pay the supplemental Old Age Security guaranteed income to non residents.

 

What part of SUPPLEMENTAL did you not understand?

And FYI,  The GIS is indeed part of Old Age Security. The government says so. It states this on the website. It is one of 3 additional Old Age Security benefits.   And yes, I stated that the GIS is not paid to people living outside canada.

 

And as per the  OAS website, there are conditions for non residents to collect, because it is not universal

- have been a Canadian citizen or a legal resident of Canada on the day before you left Canada

- have resided in Canada for at least 20 years since the age of 18

 

The last condition is  rather critical for those who have been living in Thailand since the age of 18 and have not legally resided in Canada for at least 20 years.  

 

 

 

[Patong2021]

 

 

On 2/21/2025 at 6:36 PM, gamb00ler said:

No... that cannot be said.  Simple facts show that your notion is incorrect.  Only the empoyer's and employee's FICA taxes are supporting SS benefits.  It's been that way by law since the inception of SS.

 

By current law, the revenue from federal income taxes cannot now or in the future be used to prop up the SS trust fund.  That's why the current projections warn that SS benefits will need to be reduced when the SS trust fund is exhausted.  At that point SSA will only be able to pay out as much as it takes in.  

 

It most certainly  can.

The US Congress decides the funding for the Social Security administrative budget.

The 2025 administrative budget is $75.7 billion. This money comes form the US taxpayer. 

 

You have confirmed that the Social Security payments program is supported by the  payroll tax and a self-employment tax.

You do not deny that excess contributions were required to be invested in US debt.

The interest on the debt is paid by US taxpayers. The investment principal is guaranteed by US taxpayers.

 

Yes, Social Security payments would be required to be reduced if the Trust fund is exhausted. However, the reality is that while there is no law in place that requires taxpayers to make up the difference, the economic impact of a shortfall would be devastating. The US experience has shown that there would be a bail out using taxpayer money. This was done  for the auto industry and the banking industry. The Social Security payments represent 5% of the US GDP. It is considered a too big to fail part of the economy. 90% of the elderly income is derived from social security payments.  

 

[TedG]

On 2/21/2025 at 11:57 AM, Patong2021 said:

 

Please note that Social Security as of 2020 has been paying out more than it has collected from deductions and other revenue .

 

This started in 2010.  It's been over 14 years, and Congress has not addressed this problem.  

 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/lawmakers-are-running-out-of-time-to-fix-social-security/

[TedG]

On 2/21/2025 at 6:36 PM, gamb00ler said:

No... that cannot be said.  Simple facts show that your notion is incorrect.  Only the empoyer's and employee's FICA taxes are supporting SS benefits.  It's been that way by law since the inception of SS.

 

By current law, the revenue from federal income taxes cannot now or in the future be used to prop up the SS trust fund.  That's why the current projections warn that SS benefits will need to be reduced when the SS trust fund is exhausted.  At that point SSA will only be able to pay out as much as it takes in.  

It can be said.   The trust fund is nothing but IOUs.   This means the federal government makes up the difference via more debt or from the general fund. 

[Patong2021]

Just now, TedG said:

This started in 2010.  It's been over 14 years, and Congress has not addressed this problem.  

 

https://www.pgpf.org/article/lawmakers-are-running-out-of-time-to-fix-social-security/

 

Yes. If you wanted to really press the point, you could go back to the 1980's when the issue was critical. Allan Greenspan had the commission on funding. It's easy to blame politicians though. Every time they want to reform, people come back and complain that they won't contribute more or accept reduced payments. maybe it's time for the US population to put on their big boy pants and deal with the issue and accept the changes of increased contributions and/or limited benefits.

[TedG]

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Yes. If you wanted to really press the point, you could go back to the 1980's when the issue was critical. Allan Greenspan had the commission on funding. It's easy to blame politicians though. Every time they want to reform, people come back and complain that they won't contribute more or accept reduced payments. maybe it's time for the US population to put on their big boy pants and deal with the issue and accept the changes of increased contributions and/or limited benefits.

In the 1980s, the SS payroll tax was increased from 10.16% to 12.4%.   It's time to increase the rate again.  Since the ratio of people paying to people receiving SS in 2024 is 2.7:1,   the longer Congress waits, the worse the problem.  Congess is not forward-looking.   We need a POTUS who speaks out about these issues.  

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, TedG said:

In the 1980s, the SS payroll tax was increased from 10.16% to 12.4%.   It's time to increase the rate again.  Since the ratio of people paying to people receiving SS in 2024 is 2.7:1,   the longer Congress waits, the worse the problem.  Congess is not forward-looking.   We need a POTUS who speaks out about these issues.  

Employer and individual combined. 

 

I wonder what my 401k would look like had 10% gone in since I was 15....

 

Prior to cutting SS and SSI benefits more objective categories of disabled need to be defined, and fraud need to be much more heavily investigated and more severely punished. 

 

Retirement age(s) need to be raised for people that are at least ten years out. 

[gamb00ler]

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

You do not deny that excess contributions were required to be invested in US debt.

The interest on the debt is paid by US taxpayers

The federal government's borrowing from the SS trust fund is at the same rate that it would have to pay any other lender (T-bill purchaser).  So the added cost to the US taxpayer is zero at worst and may very well save the taxpayer on interest expense.  Selling additional T-bills at auction will have small additional transaction costs.  Small costs at high volumes do become significant.  Additional volume of T-bills may also reduce their price which in effect increases the actual interest rate the federal government will end up paying.

 

Did you get the $75.7B figure from here?  If so, your figure is off by 10X.  The actual overhead comes to .5%.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

[Patong2021]

12 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

The federal government's borrowing from the SS trust fund is at the same rate that it would have to pay any other lender (T-bill purchaser).  So the added cost to the US taxpayer is zero at worst and may very well save the taxpayer on interest expense.  Selling additional T-bills at auction will have small additional transaction costs.  Small costs at high volumes do become significant.  Additional volume of T-bills may also reduce their price which in effect increases the actual interest rate the federal government will end up paying.

 

Did you get the $75.7B figure from here?  If so, your figure is off by 10X.  The actual overhead comes to .5%.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html

 

The $75.7 Billion value is from the 2025 Social Security Budget. Approx. $22 billion was advanced at the end of  2024.

See page 2 of the 2025 Presidential budget        https://www.ssa.gov/budget/assets/materials/2025/2025BST.pdf    

 

 

The current T Bill rate depending on discount and term for new investments is 3.99% to 4.35%

https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_bill_rates&field_tdr_date_value=2025

 

The current interest rate for new Special-issue interest rates on new investment is 4.625%

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/newIssueRates.html

 

I believe it is reasonable to conclude that the higher interest rate means that the taxpayers are paying more on Social Security debt than if they took standard T Bill debt. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that the taxpayers are paying a slight premium and this is in effect an additional pay-in to the Social Security fund.

 

I missed this difference in the  interest rate, which furthers the position that taxpayers are indeed supporting Social Security. Thanking you for pointing out the difference, even though that was not your intent.

 

[gamb00ler]

15 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The current interest rate for new Special-issue interest rates on new investment is 4.625%

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/newIssueRates.html

On that page at the bottom of the historical rates is a link to the calculation (established by law in1960) that SSA uses to set the interest rate for Special issue bonds.

 

The formula sets the rate applicable in a given month to the average market yield on marketable interest-bearing securities of the Federal government which are not due or callable until after 4 years from the last business day of the prior month (the day when the rate is determined). The average yield must then be rounded to the nearest eighth of 1 percent.

 

Link:  https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/intrateformula.html

 

The federal government must sell other interest bearing securities that have higher rates than T-bills.

It sounds like the SSA bond interest rate is defined to be competitive to the average rate the federal government pays.

[Patong2021]

4 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

On that page at the bottom of the historical rates is a link to the calculation (established by law in1960) that SSA uses to set the interest rate for Special issue bonds.

 

The formula sets the rate applicable in a given month to the average market yield on marketable interest-bearing securities of the Federal government which are not due or callable until after 4 years from the last business day of the prior month (the day when the rate is determined). The average yield must then be rounded to the nearest eighth of 1 percent.

 

Link:  https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/intrateformula.html

 

The federal government must sell other interest bearing securities that have higher rates than T-bills.

It sounds like the SSA bond interest rate is defined to be competitive to the average rate the federal government pays.

 

Ok, but the  fact is that the TBill rate is 3.995 to 4.35%   and the special  social security fund security rate is 4.625%.

 

All that you have done is say that that there is a law that establishes how the rate is set.  The rate may indeed reflect the market for the format specified in the formula, but really it means nothing if the interest rate is higher than what it would be if the relationship was not forced. 

 

[gamb00ler]

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Ok, but the  fact is that the TBill rate is 3.995 to 4.35%   and the special  social security fund security rate is 4.625%.

 

All that you have done is say that that there is a law that establishes how the rate is set.  The rate may indeed reflect the market for the format specified in the formula, but really it means nothing if the interest rate is higher than what it would be if the relationship was not forced. 

 

For some reason you seem obsessed with the T-bill rates.  Did you not read the part of the law that states that the SS trust fund rate is set to the actual average rate that the government pays on all comparable debt obligations?  The T-bills are only a portion of the debt that the government continually borrows.  The SS funds are paid at the blended rate not just the rate of the most visible portion of the funding sources.