What would the Left cut?

[DieHappy]

Are you talking about capital gains?

 

[chaz345]

Chaz, we can afford to pay the social security recipients their money that they paid for through the decades.

That's just the problem though. A given SS contributor isn't paying into the system for themself, they are paying for those who are currently retired. Where did the money paid in by today's retirees go? And what happens as, as has be the case, the number of retirees grows as the number or workers working and paying into the system declines?

The problem with SS as it has been run is that it's become nothing more than a giant mechanism by which spending/debt is shifted from one generation to the ones that follow. We need to either make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes on anything else, or phase it out entirely. If SS revenue hadn't been treated as a giant slush fund to be spent on whatever, we wouldn't have ever needed the relatively large increases in the SS tax rate or the increases in retirement age.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Steve
Are you suggesting that we should not cut the subsides to oil companies because it does not make a huge reduction in the 1.5 TRILLION dollar annual deficit?


I thought you were for everybody taking a cut.

I have heard a lot of people scream that we should cut some of the welfare funds in the budget. However, I did not hear any one say that we should not cut the Emergency Food and Shelter program because it will not make a huge reduction in the 1.5 trillion annual deficits. By the way for comparison take the Emergency Food and Shelter Budget of $100 MILLION for 2012 then compare the $100,000,000 Million to the oil subsidies cut of $3,6000,000,000 BILLION. HUGE difference!

We should not just look at how much each category that is cut affects the 1.5 TRILLION deficit but also the fairness factor should be considered. Also, The mega rich corporations should not try to get out of doing their share. There are some people that want ALL the cuts to be just for social programs; how fair is that?


Emergency Food and Shelter = $100 million
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_current_gs.php?year=2009_2014&view=1&expand=47414640&expandC=609_605_604&units=b&fy=fy10

I am for cutting across the board. I was just trying to point out how selective approaches are not the answer.

 

[revanneosl]

Just in case everybody hasn't had a chance to try this - here is a great little flash game where you work with the CBO-scored figures on both taxes and spending, and see how well you could do if you were able to make America's fiscal decisions.

 

[acropolis]

That's just the problem though. A given SS contributor isn't paying into the system for themself, they are paying for those who are currently retired. Where did the money paid in by today's retirees go? And what happens as, as has be the case, the number of retirees grows as the number or workers working and paying into the system declines?

The problem with SS as it has been run is that it's become nothing more than a giant mechanism by which spending/debt is shifted from one generation to the ones that follow. We need to either make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes on anything else, or phase it out entirely. If SS revenue hadn't been treated as a giant slush fund to be spent on whatever, we wouldn't have ever needed the relatively large increases in the SS tax rate or the increases in retirement age.

It's much more financially wise to have the current payers funding the current recipients. If you only got back what you paid into, you'd suffer greatly from inflation. Having money sitting in a bank doing nothing is highly inefficient, anyway.

The elderly are going to need to be financially supported one way or another since they can't work. Short of letting them die, there isn't any way to get around that. I feel like this reality is too often ignored, as if you could just remove the income of millions of elderly without consequence. Removing SS would just place the cost elsewhere, such as state-run nursing homes and other shelters. It's more cost efficient to pay them directly and let them take care of themselves for as long as possible rather than pull the rug out from under them and end up still paying for their welfare but in a more costly setting, like a hospital.

What is more troublesome than SS, a relatively predictable cost, is medicare/medicaid, but the cheapest solution to that is too scary despite being demonstrated to be effective in numerous industrialized nation, so the US and it's citizens continue to pay more money than any other nation per capita in both private and tax programs for healthcare.

 

[chaz345]

It's much more financially wise to have the current payers funding the current recipients. If you only got back what you paid into, you'd suffer greatly from inflation. Having money sitting in a bank doing nothing is highly inefficient, anyway.

The elderly are going to need to be financially supported one way or another since they can't work. Short of letting them die, there isn't any way to get around that. I feel like this reality is too often ignored, as if you could just remove the income of millions of elderly without consequence. Removing SS would just place the cost elsewhere, such as state-run nursing homes and other shelters. It's more cost efficient to pay them directly and let them take care of themselves for as long as possible rather than pull the rug out from under them and end up still paying for their welfare but in a more costly setting, like a hospital.

What is more troublesome than SS, a relatively predictable cost, is medicare/medicaid, but the cheapest solution to that is too scary despite being demonstrated to be effective in numerous industrialized nation, so the US and it's citizens continue to pay more money than any other nation per capita in both private and tax programs for healthcare.

You missed the main point though which is that money collected specifically for SS has been spent on other things, many many times. It's just proof of the fact that the government can't be trusted to do what they say they will when it comes to money. If there's a surplus in the SS system it should be remedied by increasing benefits, holding the retirement age steady, lowering the SS tax, or putting it aside for the bubble of boomer retirees that's been visible for decades, not by spending the money on whatever.

 

[acropolis]

You missed the main point though which is that money collected specifically for SS has been spent on other things, many many times. It's just proof of the fact that the government can't be trusted to do what they say they will when it comes to money. If there's a surplus in the SS system it should be remedied by increasing benefits, holding the retirement age steady, lowering the SS tax, or putting it aside for the bubble of boomer retirees that's been visible for decades, not by spending the money on whatever.

It's unfortunate that SS revenue is being misappropriated, but that doesn't make the concept fundamentally flawed. Those misappropriations should be corrected, and it's perfectly possible to do so, but SS also needs to continue functioning. The money is going to be paid regardless, and it causes the smallest impact on the workforce of the costs are distributed rather than having to be paid only by immediate family, or some other more ad hoc system. It's better in this case to improve the existing system rather than let it collapse and be forced to deal with the costly results.

It is inefficient and pointless to save up a big surplus for SS, since the longer that money sits around doing nothing, the longer it devalues from inflation. It's most efficient to adjust SS taxes to fit the current and near-future costs, then transfer those funds directly to the recipients. There's very little loss due to inflation that way.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Steve P
I am for cutting across the board. I was just trying to point out how selective approaches are not the answer.

Ok, good point about the selective approach not being the answer.
Cutting across the board is probably the best way to try and be fair to all.
I would want to start with the waste first, then the cuts, then the tax going back to the 1990 tax rate for the millionaires and billionaires.

Quote by Steve P
Conservatives here have offered up cuts to military, and I have also agreed to tax increases in proportion to and CONTINGENT on REAL reductions in Federal spending. Those taxes would be solely applied to debt reduction

Steve, I wished the Tea Party was as reasonable as you are.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Quote of Chaz
We need to either make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes on anything else, or phase it out entirely

We need to make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes! The social security system has some problems but they can be worked out. The social security system has been a great benefit to the poor, disabled, widows, and elderly. I would not vote for phasing it out.

Medicare is another government program that has problems that can be worked out. However, the proof that Medicare is a fairly good program is that it costs $96.70 per month and the private insurances will charge you 3-7 times that much

the social security funds are solvent for a least the next 25 yeas. It could be that they are solvent for 75 years!

From the SSA website:


Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?
In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.

 

[chaz345]

It's unfortunate that SS revenue is being misappropriated, but that doesn't make the concept fundamentally flawed. Those misappropriations should be corrected, and it's perfectly possible to do so, but SS also needs to continue functioning. The money is going to be paid regardless, and it causes the smallest impact on the workforce of the costs are distributed rather than having to be paid only by immediate family, or some other more ad hoc system. It's better in this case to improve the existing system rather than let it collapse and be forced to deal with the costly results.

It is inefficient and pointless to save up a big surplus for SS, since the longer that money sits around doing nothing, the longer it devalues from inflation. It's most efficient to adjust SS taxes to fit the current and near-future costs, then transfer those funds directly to the recipients. There's very little loss due to inflation that way.

I never said the concept is fundamentally flawed. As for the big surplus, why did the government need to spend it? Like I said, reduce the surplus by either increasing benefits, where the money will be out in the general economy doing good, decrease SS taxes where again the money will be out in the general economy doing good, or stop(or put off) another increase in retirement age.

 

[chaz345]

We need to make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes! The social security system has some problems but they can be worked out. The social security system has been a great benefit to the poor, disabled, widows, and elderly. I would not vote for phasing it out.

Medicare is another government program that has problems that can be worked out. However, the proof that Medicare is a fairly good program is that it costs $96.70 per month and the private insurances will charge you 3-7 times that much

the social security funds are solvent for a least the next 25 yeas. It could be that they are solvent for 75 years!

From the SSA website:


Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?
In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.

There is no SS "trust fund". Or at least there's no real $$ there. It's all a bunch of promises from the Government to pay the money. Money that it doesn't even have.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Actually, Obama was taking a lot of flak from his own party after saying that entitlements were on the table.

While that makes for a good sound bite, "on the table" isn't really a plan.

Now, what republicans have put revenue on the table?

When you say "revenue", do you mean tax increases?

 

[Eric Hilbert]

There is no SS "trust fund". Or at least there's no real $$ there. It's all a bunch of promises from the Government to pay the money. Money that it doesn't even have.

When I was a kid, my brother was a heroin addict. One night, when I was about twelve, I caught him stealing about $60 out of the box I kept in my dresser drawer. He said he was sorry and that he would pay the money back. It's been thirty-five years and I still haven't seen that $60.

And yet, I still believe I'll he'll pay that $60 back before Congress pays back the money they took from Social Security.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by sdmsanjose http://www.christianforums.com/t7578198-post58100037/#post58100037
We need to make it illegal for the government to spend money collected in SS taxes! The social security system has some problems but they can be worked out. The social security system has been a great benefit to the poor, disabled, widows, and elderly. I would not vote for phasing it out.

Medicare is another government program that has problems that can be worked out. However, the proof that Medicare is a fairly good program is that it costs $96.70 per month and the private insurances will charge you 3-7 times that much

the social security funds are solvent for a least the next 25 yeas. It could be that they are solvent for 75 years!

From the SSA website:


Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?
In the annual Trustees Report, projections are made under three alternative sets of economic and demographic assumptions. Under one of these sets (labeled "Low Cost") the trust funds remain solvent for the next 75 years. Under the other two sets (the "Intermediate" and "High Cost"), the trust funds become depleted within the next 25 years. The intermediate assumptions reflect the Trustees' best estimate of future experience.



REPLY BY CHAZ
There is no SS "trust fund". Or at least there's no real $$ there. It's all a bunch of promises from the Government to pay the money. Money that it doesn't even have.

CHAZ
Where are you getting your information from?
Can you post the link to the source of your statements?


I have been posting from the SSA website
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n11

here is another below:
Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past?
The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI), from which retirement benefits are paid, were nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds and then later enacted legislation to strengthen OASI Trust Fund financing. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n11

 

[chaz345]

CHAZ
Where are you getting your information from?
Can you post the link to the source of your statements?


I have been posting from the SSA website
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n11

here is another below:
Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past?
The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI), from which retirement benefits are paid, were nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds and then later enacted legislation to strengthen OASI Trust Fund financing. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#n11

If there's actual money there and available to pay to recipients, then why would the pending debt ceiling "crisis" have any effect at all on the government's ability to pay SS benefits? The only way they are connected is if there's no real money in the SS "trust fund" and the government is borrowing to cover those obligations. IOW the SS web site is lying to you. The government needs to borrow more money to pay back what it borrowed from the SS fund.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Isn't SS an off-budget item?