Social Security Ameirca

[Lost in LOS]

still cannot get online to see my account but I emailed and called the Philippines to change some things. The were absolutely great. If you need something done and you live here, I suggest you go straight to contacting the Philippines.

thanks for any help

[spytheweb]

Your argument is hard to follow - regardless, I'll keep to my initial posting - US government workers are far from enviable when it comes to work ethic. Add a complex web based database system for online services to the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Contrary to what you might believe, their online services are not magic - it's staffed by plenty of government employees. I've worked with my fair share of GS types and the competent are few and far between.

I'm happy to hear your experiences with the SS folk have been easy, but opinions and accounts differ, and this is a forum. Again, I am not proud of a program that is taking money from me or my generation that will never be seen again.

"US government workers are far from enviable when it comes to work ethic." So are people who work for corporations, the only difference is when corporate folks make mistakes they are usually in their favor and profit for the company. Now if you said Americans are incompetent on the whole that would be more on the mark. No matter where you go in America there's rotten service, you can't just blame government workers.

I am not proud of a program (DOD) that is taking money from me or my generation and bombs the hell out of 3rd world countries.

[Lost in LOS]

Your argument is hard to follow - regardless, I'll keep to my initial posting - US government workers are far from enviable when it comes to work ethic. Add a complex web based database system for online services to the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Contrary to what you might believe, their online services are not magic - it's staffed by plenty of government employees. I've worked with my fair share of GS types and the competent are few and far between.

I'm happy to hear your experiences with the SS folk have been easy, but opinions and accounts differ, and this is a forum. Again, I am not proud of a program that is taking money from me or my generation that will never be seen again.

I dont blame you, the SS system is broke.

but keep in mind, i was forced to pay 15% of my earnings for 40 years. They promised to put it into an interest bearing account, but instead took it out and put it into government programs. Now they are giving it back, they tax me on it. So dont blame us old guys, we already paid our due. We weren't proud of a program that took money from us either and now gives us C*ap about giving OUR money [not tax money or your money] back

America is broken

Edited July 16, 2011 by Lost in LOS

[Langsuan Man]

i was forced to pay 15% of my earnings for 40 years.

Afraid not, the maximum rate in 2011 (OASDI) for wages paid is 4.2 percent for employees and Medicare program are 1.45 percent each for employees *

So the amount you started paying 40 years ago was minuscule

* source

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2011-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings

[ra1n85]

Your argument is hard to follow - regardless, I'll keep to my initial posting - US government workers are far from enviable when it comes to work ethic. Add a complex web based database system for online services to the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Contrary to what you might believe, their online services are not magic - it's staffed by plenty of government employees. I've worked with my fair share of GS types and the competent are few and far between.

I'm happy to hear your experiences with the SS folk have been easy, but opinions and accounts differ, and this is a forum. Again, I am not proud of a program that is taking money from me or my generation that will never be seen again.

"US government workers are far from enviable when it comes to work ethic." So are people who work for corporations, the only difference is when corporate folks make mistakes they are usually in their favor and profit for the company. Now if you said Americans are incompetent on the whole that would be more on the mark. No matter where you go in America there's rotten service, you can't just blame government workers.

I am not proud of a program (DOD) that is taking money from me or my generation and bombs the hell out of 3rd world countries.

Corporations, Government, Miltary...hmmm...why would a US air force Tech Sgt be so bitter?

I'm pretty happy with the customer service I get from Amazon.com, Bodybuilding.com, my car dealership, all the bookstores I visit, my ISP, hotels...etc. After extensive travelling, I can say that customer service in America is the best. I guess you have had different experiences.

[JimGant]

Afraid not, the maximum rate in 2011 (OASDI) for wages paid is 4.2 percent for employees and Medicare program are 1.45 percent each for employees *

Yeah, that 4.2% incorporates the Obama stimulus reduction.

Per your link, the normal FICA is 6.2 OASDI, 1.45 Medicare = 7.65. Double that, as would a self-employed individual do, you get 15.3%.

So, when one says "i was forced to pay 15% of my earnings for 40 years," that actually undercuts the pricetag by .3%. (Ok, earlier FICA rates were less -- but using the new Obama rates as a rebuttal is equally less sincere.)

[WarpSpeed]

Oh, I'm American and I'm proud alright! Every year, dumping 5-6k of my money into some ponzi scheme that takes care of you old folks.

But I'm happy to hear they were cordial with you, regardless of their 90 minute lunch breaks, and non-merit based salary increases.

I doubt it's the case, but you may be being blocked due to your IP being in Thailand. You can try using a VPN service that hosts you from an American IP:

AlwaysVPN - https://ssl.alwaysvpn.com/

They charge around $8 for 5g of transfers.

Honestly though, it sounds like some lame government employee failed to enter your information correctly. Good luck dealing with those folks.

i bet you probably know zip about ss services nor have you any personal experiences with ss services in the states....

all their rep were most cordial and accommodating.... speaking from personal experiences....

i am referring to staffing in the u,s. ok.

ss personnel are a truly exceptional bunch that all americans can be very proud of....

yes, i am exceptionally proud of you guys and gals in the ss dept in america....

since i never conduct ss biz thru manila.... i won't commend....

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

[flying]

The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

We all think that way but the reality is SS is a tax & as such there is no guarantee of a return of/on it.

The tax refund can & may be stopped at the will of congress.

The Social Security Act of 1935 stipulates that: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress."

In Flemming v. Nestor (1960) the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.

Edited July 16, 2011 by flying

[CaptHaddock]

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

SS is not mismanaged nor will the baby boom make SS "nonexistent." The payroll tax was raised in 1983, by the Greenspan Commission set up by the Reagan administration, in order to provide a fund for the "pig in the python" bulge of baby boomers in the workforce. The increased payroll tax built up the SS Trust Fund which now has about $2.4 trillion. The plan was to deplete the Trust Fund during the baby boomer payout period after which point SS would revert to its original pay-as-you-go basis. The current estimate of the depletion of the Trust Fund, using the worst-case estimates for economic growth, is 2037. If the economy grows poorly and no adjustment is made before then recipients would receive 75% of the planned payouts which are scheduled to be more than 2011 payouts even after adjusting for inflation.

By comparison the Defense Department budget is not funded for the next 26 years. Are you worried that the US won't be able to pay its army?

The kind of misconceptions voiced by Mr. Flying are promoted as part of the Republican effort to destroy SS using fear, uncertainty and doubt, a task made easier by the vast ignorance of people like Mr. Flying.

[WarpSpeed]

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

SS is not mismanaged nor will the baby boom make SS "nonexistent." The payroll tax was raised in 1983, by the Greenspan Commission set up by the Reagan administration, in order to provide a fund for the "pig in the python" bulge of baby boomers in the workforce. The increased payroll tax built up the SS Trust Fund which now has about $2.4 trillion. The plan was to deplete the Trust Fund during the baby boomer payout period after which point SS would revert to its original pay-as-you-go basis. The current estimate of the depletion of the Trust Fund, using the worst-case estimates for economic growth, is 2037. If the economy grows poorly and no adjustment is made before then recipients would receive 75% of the planned payouts which are scheduled to be more than 2011 payouts even after adjusting for inflation.

By comparison the Defense Department budget is not funded for the next 26 years. Are you worried that the US won't be able to pay its army?

The kind of misconceptions voiced by Mr. Flying are promoted as part of the Republican effort to destroy SS using fear, uncertainty and doubt, a task made easier by the vast ignorance of people like Mr. Flying.

Yes, so why use my quote?? The evidence does point to it being mismanaged however as they continue to cut back on monthly payments or hold back annual increases to compensate for inflation. If it's so well managed and there's so much surplus there why is this happening?? Rhetorical question by the way as I suggest like most things governmental it's all slight of hand & smoke and mirrors..

Edited July 17, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

SS is not mismanaged nor will the baby boom make SS "nonexistent." The payroll tax was raised in 1983, by the Greenspan Commission set up by the Reagan administration, in order to provide a fund for the "pig in the python" bulge of baby boomers in the workforce. The increased payroll tax built up the SS Trust Fund which now has about $2.4 trillion. The plan was to deplete the Trust Fund during the baby boomer payout period after which point SS would revert to its original pay-as-you-go basis. The current estimate of the depletion of the Trust Fund, using the worst-case estimates for economic growth, is 2037. If the economy grows poorly and no adjustment is made before then recipients would receive 75% of the planned payouts which are scheduled to be more than 2011 payouts even after adjusting for inflation.

By comparison the Defense Department budget is not funded for the next 26 years. Are you worried that the US won't be able to pay its army?

The kind of misconceptions voiced by Mr. Flying are promoted as part of the Republican effort to destroy SS using fear, uncertainty and doubt, a task made easier by the vast ignorance of people like Mr. Flying.

Yes, so why use my quote?? The evidence does point to it being mismanaged however as they continue to cut back on monthly payments or hold back annual increases to compensate for inflation. If it's so well managed and there's so much surplus there why is this happening?? Rhetorical question by the way as I suggest like most things governmental it's all slight of hand & smoke and mirrors..

Captain you may want to pass that on to the whitehouse as they don't appear to know it. But then it is always best to keep the public in a state of fear. That way they don't tend to notice what a lousy job ALL of the politicians are doing.

[CaptHaddock]

Yes, so why use my quote?? The evidence does point to it being mismanaged however as they continue to cut back on monthly payments or hold back annual increases to compensate for inflation. If it's so well managed and there's so much surplus there why is this happening?? Rhetorical question by the way as I suggest like most things governmental it's all slight of hand & smoke and mirrors..

What mismanagement is the SSA guilty of? Who is "they" who cuts back on payments? No payments have ever been cut. SS payments are fully funded for the next 26 years unlike any other government agency. Medicare is in crisis, but SS is not. Any of the following would enable the SSA to make all the planned payments forever. But even then no changes are required until 2037!

1. growth of GDP averaging 2.5% or better

2. removing the $106,000 cap on income subject to payroll tax. Naturally if the growth in income is concentrated in the wealthiest 10% as it has been for the past 15 years or more, excluding the upper income bracket deprives the SSA of a commensurate increase in payroll tax receipts.

3. removing the exclusion of capital gains and investment income from the payroll tax

4. raising the rate of payroll tax

There is no SS crisis. The crisis talk is part of the current Republican strategy of destroying SS after the failure of Bush's privatizing scheme. There is a Medicare crisis caused by uncontrolled increase in health care costs. The Republicans perpetually lump SS and Medicare together as needing reductions as they pursue yet more tax breaks for the rich.

When you casually toss around baseless accusations of mismanagement you feed into the Republican effort to destroy SS.

[CaptHaddock]

Captain you may want to pass that on to the whitehouse as they don't appear to know it. But then it is always best to keep the public in a state of fear. That way they don't tend to notice what a lousy job ALL of the politicians are doing.

I don't buy it that the politicians are all the same. It was Bush's Republicans who drew us into two cruel wars wasting $4 trillion of the wealth of the nation and cut taxes for the rich contributing to the increase in the deficit even before the financial crisis. That crisis can also be laid at the feet of Reagan and his successors' pushing of deregulation of the financial industry, although the Dems did get on board with some of that.

And now the Republicans are threatening the country's credit rating risking another financial armageddon like 2008.

They want you and me to be poor while the top few percent get yet richer still. This is clear class warfare.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Captain you may want to pass that on to the whitehouse as they don't appear to know it. But then it is always best to keep the public in a state of fear. That way they don't tend to notice what a lousy job ALL of the politicians are doing.

I don't buy it that the politicians are all the same. It was Bush's Republicans who drew us into two cruel wars wasting $4 trillion of the wealth of the nation and cut taxes for the rich contributing to the increase in the deficit even before the financial crisis. That crisis can also be laid at the feet of Reagan and his successors' pushing of deregulation of the financial industry, although the Dems did get on board with some of that.

And now the Republicans are threatening the country's credit rating risking another financial armageddon like 2008.

They want you and me to be poor while the top few percent get yet richer still. This is clear class warfare.

Well I sure as hell will not defend any of the politicians, democrats or republicans they are all self serving. Obama has been in the drivers seat for 2 1/2 years and has done nothing but spend $> Ther republicans might be bad but that does not make the democrats good. They all play politics and do whatever the lobbyist pay them to do.

[ra1n85]

Oh, I'm American and I'm proud alright! Every year, dumping 5-6k of my money into some ponzi scheme that takes care of you old folks.

But I'm happy to hear they were cordial with you, regardless of their 90 minute lunch breaks, and non-merit based salary increases.

I doubt it's the case, but you may be being blocked due to your IP being in Thailand. You can try using a VPN service that hosts you from an American IP:

AlwaysVPN - https://ssl.alwaysvpn.com/

They charge around $8 for 5g of transfers.

Honestly though, it sounds like some lame government employee failed to enter your information correctly. Good luck dealing with those folks.

i bet you probably know zip about ss services nor have you any personal experiences with ss services in the states....

all their rep were most cordial and accommodating.... speaking from personal experiences....

i am referring to staffing in the u,s. ok.

ss personnel are a truly exceptional bunch that all americans can be very proud of....

yes, i am exceptionally proud of you guys and gals in the ss dept in america....

since i never conduct ss biz thru manila.... i won't commend....

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

So I don't deserve my money back, but they do...simply because they came before me? Sorry, I'm silly and uneducated, so I find myself asking questions like that.

[JimGant]

SS payments are fully funded for the next 26 years unlike any other government agency....[t]he current estimate of the depletion of the Trust Fund, using the worst-case estimates for economic growth, is 2037.

The trust fund is full of what, intragovernment Treasuries, or nothing more than IOUs. Paper, not greenbacks. And SS recipients have to be paid in greenbacks, not IOUs.

In 2010, for the first time, SS taxes into the trust fund were less than the payouts. Thus, the govt not only had no excess greenbacks with which to exchange for more IOUs, but now had to pay SS recipients with greenbacks from ordinary income taxes -- or greenbacks borrowed from public bond issues. Thus, SS recipients are now in the queue, same as Defense, the FAA, you name it.

You can wave those IOUs all you want, but SS recipients are in the same boat as Federal government employees, with no contractual right (as someone pointed out) to receive what is currently guaranteed. It all comes down to the fact that they will receive something (for political as well as economic reasons) -- just not as much as the current promises indicate. Same with govt employees, whose takehome pay is destined to decline (for those who haven't been fired, anyway).

A lot of good articles related to this. HERE

And my favorite (which is also referenced in the above link) HERE TOO

[JimGant]

The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment..

Depends on whether they're poor or rich, since Social Security is a "forced savings/social-insurance scheme." (The Economist)

The benefit formula for Social Security is highly progressive. The lower your average earnings the higher a benefit you get relative to your contribution. On average 67 cents of every Social Security tax dollar is a pure tax, but the pure tax rate is negative for low-income earners and 79 cents for high earners.

Meaning, the rich only get back 21 cents for every dollar they put in -- and that's on average. It's almost nothing back for the last few years of FICA payments. And, if the cap is raised from $106k, even more progressive...

The poor get more back than they pay in. And, interestingly, you're factored as "poor" if you only pay in close to the 40 quarter minimum. The Feds understand this, so if you worked under SS for only part of your working life (say you worked also for a local gov't not under SS), the Feds consider this, and dock your SS check for this over-enrichment quirk.

[Note: The above quote from The Economist, April 2009. Since every payroll tax dollar today is paying SS benefits (not buying IOUs), it would seem the pure tax rate is all negative today. However, this doesn't change the payout disparity between rich and poor -- it just highlights the dire straits SS is in.

Edited July 18, 2011 by JimGant

[flying]

The trust fund is full of what, intragovernment Treasuries, or nothing more than IOUs.

You can wave those IOUs all you want, but SS recipients are in the same boat as Federal government employees, with no contractual right (as someone pointed out) to receive what is currently guaranteed.

That is what I'm talking about

Good post Jim

[CaptHaddock]

Depends on whether they're poor or rich, since Social Security is a "forced savings/social-insurance scheme." (The Economist)

The benefit formula for Social Security is highly progressive. The lower your average earnings the higher a benefit you get relative to your contribution. On average 67 cents of every Social Security tax dollar is a pure tax, but the pure tax rate is negative for low-income earners and 79 cents for high earners.

Meaning, the rich only get back 21 cents for every dollar they put in -- and that's on average. It's almost nothing back for the last few years of FICA payments. And, if the cap is raised from $106k, even more progressive...

The poor get more back than they pay in. And, interestingly, you're factored as "poor" if you only pay in close to the 40 quarter minimum. The Feds understand this, so if you worked under SS for only part of your working life (say you worked also for a local gov't not under SS), the Feds consider this, and dock your SS check for this over-enrichment quirk.

[Note: The above quote from The Economist, April 2009. Since every payroll tax dollar today is paying SS benefits (not buying IOUs), it would seem the pure tax rate is all negative today. However, this doesn't change the payout disparity between rich and poor -- it just highlights the dire straits SS is in.

The Economist is quite right about the "forced savings/social-insurance scheme." That's why SS has worked so well at reducing old age poverty since 1935. It's not that the "poor get back more than they pay in." It's that the living get paid more than they pay in. It's true the rich subsidize the poor to some extent, but that seem eminently fair since the rich have benefited so much more from the economy. The main reason SS works and is sustainable is that it is an insurance scheme. Everyone pays in, but you have to be alive to collect. It's like fire insurance: everyone pays in, but only those who have fires collect. So, those who do collect, get much more than they paid in. No ponzi magic. This aspect of SS (or any annuity plan) is called the "mortality credit." The mortality credit is the reason that the odds are very much against your getting a better lifetime return on your individual investments than SS. You cannot provide a mortality credit for yourself. It can only be provided by pooling longevity risk in a large group.

It's apparently asking a lot to expect JimGant and Flying to grasp this concept. If you refuse to understand the mortality credit then SS must indeed be some sort of ponzi scheme that will eventually fail.

I am guessing that neither JimGant nor Flying is rich. Nevertheless they have bought in lock, stock and barrel to all of the lies and misrepresentation that the right wing has promoted to serve their rich sponsors. But that's ok, it will pay off for JimGant, Flying and the other wingnuts when they do become rich.

What saps.

[WarpSpeed]

Yes, so why use my quote?? The evidence does point to it being mismanaged however as they continue to cut back on monthly payments or hold back annual increases to compensate for inflation. If it's so well managed and there's so much surplus there why is this happening?? Rhetorical question by the way as I suggest like most things governmental it's all slight of hand & smoke and mirrors..

What mismanagement is the SSA guilty of? Who is "they" who cuts back on payments? No payments have ever been cut. SS payments are fully funded for the next 26 years unlike any other government agency. Medicare is in crisis, but SS is not. Any of the following would enable the SSA to make all the planned payments forever. But even then no changes are required until 2037!

1. growth of GDP averaging 2.5% or better

2. removing the $106,000 cap on income subject to payroll tax. Naturally if the growth in income is concentrated in the wealthiest 10% as it has been for the past 15 years or more, excluding the upper income bracket deprives the SSA of a commensurate increase in payroll tax receipts.

3. removing the exclusion of capital gains and investment income from the payroll tax

4. raising the rate of payroll tax

There is no SS crisis. The crisis talk is part of the current Republican strategy of destroying SS after the failure of Bush's privatizing scheme. There is a Medicare crisis caused by uncontrolled increase in health care costs. The Republicans perpetually lump SS and Medicare together as needing reductions as they pursue yet more tax breaks for the rich.

When you casually toss around baseless accusations of mismanagement you feed into the Republican effort to destroy SS.

I said cut back payments, not cut off payments, of course they've cut them back numerous times over the last few years by that I mean there is supposed to be an annual increase for inflation and they've (though you should know who I'm referring to I'll be more specific for your benefit anyways "they" being the SS admin..) Have consistently held the increases back..

There is no SS crisis for YOU i guess but you're only one person and I dare say a minority... Here ya go, just today, to refresh your memory on Yahoo news.. SS troubles for the future

Edited July 18, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[WarpSpeed]

Your'e either silly or uneducated or both.. The "old folks" you refer to of which I'm not...Yet..... have paid into that fund for longer then you have and maybe longer then you've been alive and deserve to get back their life long investment... Regrettably mismanagement and a baby boom may make it nonexistent for both of us but I still don't begrudge their due to those who have worked their entire life and paid in..

So I don't deserve my money back, but they do...simply because they came before me? Sorry, I'm silly and uneducated, so I find myself asking questions like that.

Your moving the goals posts as I clearly highlighted the portion I was referring to and you responded to something completely different to suit your rant.. I quoted "Old folks" as your post was directed at them and not the government, yes THEY do deserve their just dues as do you AND I but your hostility and indifference towards the current retired SS recipients is misplaced..

[JimGant]

Nevertheless they have bought in lock, stock and barrel to all of the lies and misrepresentation that the right wing has promoted

Is that your response to our point that the SS trust fund is full of empty IOUs? If so, please elaborate -- cogently, if you can.

It's that the living get paid more than they pay in.

Well, in a true annuity scheme, yes -- if they outlive the actuarial marker. But the dead get paid less to compensate -- your so-called 'mortality credit.' However, so do the rich with SS, since SS is a social program, and you would still not get back what you paid in -- if you outlive the actuarial marker -- and you're rich. SS, then, is not the good deal for the rich vis-a-vis buying a annuity -- which at least guarantees you'll get your principle back, unlike with SS.

It's true the rich subsidize the poor to some extent, but that seem eminently fair since the rich have benefited so much more from the economy.

I have no problem with social programs, or progressive taxation. And, I'm all for means testing and blowing off the $106k cap on wages. However, lets get rid of the charade that SS is some kind of retirement program, with a fair return for all who contribute.

If you refuse to understand the mortality credit then SS must indeed be some sort of ponzi scheme that will eventually fail.

Apples and oranges. Yes, the dead who paid FICA taxes are no longer a liability, and leave more "accounts payable" for the living. However, those payments from the dead have now gone for tanks and airplanes, changing nothing about where the greenbacks will come from to pay those accounts payable. And the fact remains, these greenbacks are current receipts of FICA taxes, income taxes, and receipts from current bond issues and refloats. That we now have to wicker increased payments, to meet decreased payouts, is a no brainer. But that changes nothing about SS being a pay-as-you-go program, and thus a ponzi scheme. But, nothing wrong with pay-as-you-go -- as long as you understand you're in it, and what the pitfalls are.

And, please, no more crap about the trust fund leaving SS solvent until 2037. I'd still like to hear you address that issue....

[flying]

It's apparently asking a lot to expect JimGant and Flying to grasp this concept. If you refuse to understand the mortality credit then SS must indeed be some sort of ponzi scheme that will eventually fail.

I am guessing that neither JimGant nor Flying is rich. Nevertheless they have bought in lock, stock and barrel to all of the lies and misrepresentation that the right wing has promoted to serve their rich sponsors. But that's ok, it will pay off for JimGant, Flying and the other wingnuts when they do become rich.

What saps.

It is hard to take someone like you seriously at all.

If you read my post all I pointed out is the facts as laid out by the Supreme courts regarding contractual obligation & also a quote from The Social Security Act of 1935 that allows Congress to alter,amend or repeal said act.

Yet you take it as some kind of indication of political leanings. In that respect you are so far off base it is laughable & why it is hard to take anything you say seriously.

If you cannot respond to a post with facts & without name calling of the posters then perhaps you should take a break.

I would not say I am rich but I do not base my future on the promise of income from a system/government that is deep in debt.

It appears you do because when ever SS comes up as a topic you immediately go into a rage. Relax

[CaptHaddock]

I said cut back payments, not cut off payments, of course they've cut them back numerous times over the last few years by that I mean there is supposed to be an annual increase for inflation and they've (though you should know who I'm referring to I'll be more specific for your benefit anyways "they" being the SS admin..) Have consistently held the increases back..

There is no SS crisis for YOU i guess but you're only one person and I dare say a minority... Here ya go, just today, to refresh your memory on Yahoo news.. SS troubles for the future

Wrong again. SS Payments have never been cut in its 75 year history. Automatic Cost of Living Adjustments have been in effect since 1975. In each year since 1975 those COLAs have been positive increases in SS payout, except for the years 2010 and 2011, for both of which the COLA was 0.0%. The COLA is determined by a formula that calculates a difference in the year-over-year CPI-W inflation rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (The period used in the calculation is the 12 months ending in September of the year before the January adjustment.) The COLA was 0.0% for 2010 and 2011 because there was no inflation, as determined by the BLS formula, NOT because of any supposed SS crisis or inability of SS to make its payouts.

The history of SS COLAs is here:

http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm

The article you referenced discusses the Republican proposal, which is a back-door attack to lower the COLA in the future. Although the writer of the article claims that "almost everyone agrees that the current Social Security system is unsustainable," she provides no data to substantiate this preposterous claim. She is apparently unaware that SS can make all its payments for the next 26 years even with substandard growth. The Defense Department budget is provided through the end of the current fiscal year. Is the Defense Department unsustainable?

So far neither you nor Flying nor JimGant has correctly reported a single fact of Social Security. As is typical of the detractors of SS you don't actually seem to know anything. Fortunately, an encounter with the facts never seems to change your opinion. That's the benefit of invincible ignorance, I guess.

[CaptHaddock]

It's apparently asking a lot to expect JimGant and Flying to grasp this concept. If you refuse to understand the mortality credit then SS must indeed be some sort of ponzi scheme that will eventually fail.

I am guessing that neither JimGant nor Flying is rich. Nevertheless they have bought in lock, stock and barrel to all of the lies and misrepresentation that the right wing has promoted to serve their rich sponsors. But that's ok, it will pay off for JimGant, Flying and the other wingnuts when they do become rich.

What saps.

It is hard to take someone like you seriously at all.

If you read my post all I pointed out is the facts as laid out by the Supreme courts regarding contractual obligation & also a quote from The Social Security Act of 1935 that allows Congress to alter,amend or repeal said act.

Yet you take it as some kind of indication of political leanings. In that respect you are so far off base it is laughable & why it is hard to take anything you say seriously.

If you cannot respond to a post with facts & without name calling of the posters then perhaps you should take a break.

I would not say I am rich but I do not base my future on the promise of income from a system/government that is deep in debt.

It appears you do because when ever SS comes up as a topic you immediately go into a rage. Relax

Is there a dispute that Congress, having created Social Security, can subsequently amend or abolish it? That's not news to me since about the eighth grade. Is it news to you? Let me be the first to point out to you that Congress can actually amend or abolish any law it has ever passed since the founding of the republic.

I don't respect people who don't know what they are talking about.

[CaptHaddock]

Is that your response to our point that the SS trust fund is full of empty IOUs? If so, please elaborate -- cogently, if you can.

Well, in a true annuity scheme, yes -- if they outlive the actuarial marker. But the dead get paid less to compensate -- your so-called 'mortality credit.' However, so do the rich with SS, since SS is a social program, and you would still not get back what you paid in -- if you outlive the actuarial marker -- and you're rich. SS, then, is not the good deal for the rich vis-a-vis buying a annuity -- which at least guarantees you'll get your principle back, unlike with SS.

I have no problem with social programs, or progressive taxation. And, I'm all for means testing and blowing off the $106k cap on wages. However, lets get rid of the charade that SS is some kind of retirement program, with a fair return for all who contribute.

Apples and oranges. Yes, the dead who paid FICA taxes are no longer a liability, and leave more "accounts payable" for the living. However, those payments from the dead have now gone for tanks and airplanes, changing nothing about where the greenbacks will come from to pay those accounts payable. And the fact remains, these greenbacks are current receipts of FICA taxes, income taxes, and receipts from current bond issues and refloats. That we now have to wicker increased payments, to meet decreased payouts, is a no brainer. But that changes nothing about SS being a pay-as-you-go program, and thus a ponzi scheme. But, nothing wrong with pay-as-you-go -- as long as you understand you're in it, and what the pitfalls are.

And, please, no more crap about the trust fund leaving SS solvent until 2037. I'd still like to hear you address that issue....

1. The SS Trust Fund is full of US Treasury Bonds, which are and have been the safest IOU in the world. Indeed US Treasuries have defined and continue to define the risk-free rate of return. You may prefer to denigrate Treasuries by using the term IOU as a sleazy rhetorical tactic, but the opinion of the bond market is not swayed.

2. Your misconceptions extend beyond SS to annuities. Return of principal via period certain payments or some other feature is not an inherent property of an annuity, which is just a steam of payments. Some annuities offer such provisions while others do not and all are nevertheless "true" annuities. SS is an annuity program, i.e. an insurance program. It insures you against a financial risk that you cannot afford to bear yourself, outliving your assets. Since you don't know how long you are going to live you don't know how much money you will need. But the SSA, as the insurer pooling the risk of the cohort, knows to a high degree what the aggregate lifespan of the cohort will be, because of mortality tables and the Law of Large Numbers.

3. Understanding the difference between an insurance scheme and a ponzi scheme is evidently above your paygrade. I urge you not to attempt any investing without adult supervision.

4. Address what issue? The likelihood that the US Treasury will default on its bonds? Vanishingly unlikely. The bond market agrees with me.

I am however delighted to hear of your support for removing the income cap on the payroll tax. You do realize that if the Congress comes to agree with us the SS Trust Fund will never be depleted and the SSA will make all planned payments as far into the future as the eye can see. So, I think we are done here.

Edited July 18, 2011 by CaptHaddock

[flying]

I don't respect people who don't know what they are talking about.

Don't be so hard on yourself Captain Richard

I'm sure there will be enough SS for you to continue the life to which you've become accustomed.

Enjoy

[Gary A]

Some posters are well informed and know how the SS system works. Some obviously know nothing about the system. Here it is in a nutshell;

The SS system was designed to be pay as you go. The current cost to taxpayers is 6.2 percent with their employer matching that amount. The total becomes 12.4 percent. There is and has always been a surplus and that surplus became VERY HUGE. Congress passed laws to enable them to borrow from the SS trust fund.

A large part of the national debt is owed to the SS trust fund. The federal government has been sucking funds out of SS for the past fifteen years. For the government to suggest that Social Security is broke is one of the biggest lies they have ever come up with. The government has never paid back any of the money. They didn't have to because there is and has always been a surplus. That surplus will become negative within the next 5 years or so.

If Social Security benefits are cut, those politicians making the cuts should go to jail. They had better find some way to start paying some of that money back. The SS trust fund was designed to act as a savings account in case of hard times. There should have been a massive amount of money in the fund but the politicians simply couldn't stand to see that much money available, especially money they thought they would never need to pay back. According to the accountants, there is still 2.5 TRILLION dollars in the SS trust fund. That will keep the system solvent until around 2042 unless the politicians steal some more of it. Yes, the SS system will indeed be broke (not self sustaining) soon. Times are hard and it's time to use some funds from the SS trust fund savings account.

[WarpSpeed]

I said cut back payments, not cut off payments, of course they've cut them back numerous times over the last few years by that I mean there is supposed to be an annual increase for inflation and they've (though you should know who I'm referring to I'll be more specific for your benefit anyways "they" being the SS admin..) Have consistently held the increases back..

There is no SS crisis for YOU i guess but you're only one person and I dare say a minority... Here ya go, just today, to refresh your memory on Yahoo news.. SS troubles for the future

Wrong again. SS Payments have never been cut in its 75 year history. Automatic Cost of Living Adjustments have been in effect since 1975. In each year since 1975 those COLAs have been positive increases in SS payout, except for the years 2010 and 2011, for both of which the COLA was 0.0%. The COLA is determined by a formula that calculates a difference in the year-over-year CPI-W inflation rate calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (The period used in the calculation is the 12 months ending in September of the year before the January adjustment.) The COLA was 0.0% for 2010 and 2011 because there was no inflation, as determined by the BLS formula, NOT because of any supposed SS crisis or inability of SS to make its payouts.

The history of SS COLAs is here:

http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm

The article you referenced discusses the Republican proposal, which is a back-door attack to lower the COLA in the future. Although the writer of the article claims that "almost everyone agrees that the current Social Security system is unsustainable," she provides no data to substantiate this preposterous claim. She is apparently unaware that SS can make all its payments for the next 26 years even with substandard growth. The Defense Department budget is provided through the end of the current fiscal year. Is the Defense Department unsustainable?

So far neither you nor Flying nor JimGant has correctly reported a single fact of Social Security. As is typical of the detractors of SS you don't actually seem to know anything. Fortunately, an encounter with the facts never seems to change your opinion. That's the benefit of invincible ignorance, I guess.

Forget it, you're deliberately avoiding the REAL point of the post, no doubt due to you being clueless, I've no time for people of your ilk it's too much like banging my head against the wall....

Screw your facts. Tell my aging mother that she hasn't been cut back over the last 3 years and her SS hasn't been directly effected in a very poor economy... She'd tell you where to stuff your facts too because FACT is she has been cut back..

Edited July 19, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[JimGant]

There is and has always been a surplus and that surplus became VERY HUGE.

That surplus ran out in 2010, when the Social Security Administration took in less cash than it had to pay out. So it had to go to Treasury for the bucks. And where did Treasury have to go to get those bucks? Ah, you know, right?

There may be one or two surpluses again, in the next 6 years. But after that, the SSA will have to stand in line with every other Federal agency for its greenbacks. It's wad of IOUs, however, might, at best, carry some moral and political horsepower.

But it’s maddeningly difficult to have a reasoned conversation about Social Security when policymakers — let alone taxpayers and recipients — can’t agree on the program’s effect on the budget. A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly — often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack

Read more HERE

Also, the Sloan article, from that right-wing bastion, The Washington Post, can be found HERE

But, my last attempt -- as I realize ingrained thinking is tough to change.