Futurecasting. How will the Social Security problem be solved?

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

No, I certainly do not agree with the politicians skimming off the top the SS surplus, and that should definitely go into some kind of fund that can only be used for SS payments. I think the SS program is fine if they stop raping it. Unfortunately, for politicians the SS program is their Goose that lays the golden egg, and they are loath to give up the billions they get from it.

Ultimately I think a major tightening of the belts is in store for America, but overall I am in favor of one of the most successful government programs this country has come up with.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

I think it is a load of horse crap they have been allowed to rape the surplus to fund pet projects through the years. Of course I also believe it was a tax under the guise of a social program in the first place so them raping it was\is no surprise.

This problem has nothing to do with the current economic situation.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

It's the Democrats' way of taxing the poor without making it look like they tax the poor.

John Kerry certainly doesn't want to pay huge taxes after making the effort of marrying into a small fortune.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
It's the Democrats' way of taxing the poor without making it look like they tax the poor.

Why make this issue a R vs D issue? I remember Gore wanting to protect the SS surplus but he just missed winning the election. Bush proposed and received a massive tax cut but he didn't cut the taxes of the working poor who only pay SS/medicare taxes.

You could try to blame the democrats solely. But recent evidence shows the blame resides on the other side too. Both sides (especially the Rs in the last 50 years) have been wasting massive amounts of money. If they didn't waste money, they wouldn't need to raid the SS surplus. If they didn't raid the SS surplus, we wouldn't have this problem.

Originally posted by: Genx87
This problem has nothing to do with the current economic situation.

Of course it does. We are (a) running a government deficit and (b) ignoring the needs of the future. That has major implications on our current economy. A good economy should be bringing in government surplusses to save for the next recession where there will be deficits. The fact that we are running deficits now means we aren't using our good economy to its fullest potential. The government's books are a big part of the economy. You can't separate the two and ignore one of them.

 

[DealMonkey]

How about we pack the bottom of the SS pyramid with migrant guest workers who are now paying taxes rather than working under the table?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we pack the bottom of the SS pyramid with migrant guest workers who are now paying taxes rather than working under the table?

I would like that, but too many people scream in fear of the word "amnesty". Heck, they run and hide if something even appears like amnesty. The fact is, many "illegal" immigrants have never broken a law in their life. Why not let them pay taxes and become citizens?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
How about we pack the bottom of the SS pyramid with migrant guest workers who are now paying taxes rather than working under the table?

I would like that, but too many people scream in fear of the word "amnesty". Heck, they run and hide if something even appears like amnesty. The fact is, many "illegal" immigrants have never broken a law in their life. Why not let them pay taxes and become citizens?

I'm not suggesting we make guest workers citizens in any sort of automatic fashion. They'd have to go through the standard immigration process if they wish to become citizens. I just want them paying taxes, that's where my plan starts and ends.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just want them paying taxes, that's where my plan starts and ends.

Well, if you aren't a citizen, you shouldn't be getting SS, so you shouldn't pay SS taxes. All your plan does is have them pay income taxes. That is a noble idea, but it doesn't solve our problem in this thread. I do see what you were going for, make them pay SS taxes and NOT get SS benefits. Interesting take on the subject. I don't think it'll go over very well. And it isn't a long term solution - what if in 2050 we don't have a large guest worker population?

 

[Future Shock]

It will be a combination of solutions, each taking a small bite of the problem:

1) raising the retirement age - expect it to go to 70 at some future point

2) lowering benefits and possibly means testing them

3) increasing the SS tax percentage in small increments

4) As a last resort, deficit financing via the general fund

Taken together, these will get us through the Baby Boomer's lump in retirees. The only thing left to do is figure out the exact proportions of these, with the Boomers wanting little of the first two, and current workers wanting little of the last two. So we will find a comprimise between the four...

Future Shock

 

[Genx87]

Of course it does. We are (a) running a government deficit and (b) ignoring the needs of the future. That has major implications on our current economy. A good economy should be bringing in government surplusses to save for the next recession where there will be deficits. The fact that we are running deficits now means we aren't using our good economy to its fullest potential. The government's books are a big part of the economy. You can't separate the two and ignore one of them.

Apples and Oranges.

The economy is good right now, using your logic we have never had an economic boom because our govt has run deficits.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Apples and Oranges.

The economy is good right now, using your logic we have never had an economic boom because our govt has run deficits.

That is not at all what I'm saying. Suppose you were in a class. Suppose you had 4 tests. You got an A, A, B, and F on the tests. I say they probably average out to be a C in the overall grade. One F in a sea of good grades will not automatically be an F overall.

It does point out that there are things that need to be worked on so we can turn this good economy into a great economy.

A family that makes 20k/year and spends 40k/year on record has a great GDP of 40k/year. Sadly that one statistic ignores the 20k/year borrowing that must be addressed at one point. This extreme example (your numbers) probably gets an F in my grading system in most cases.

A family that makes 39k/year and spends 40k/year on record also has a 40k/year GDP. But the borrowing section is much lower. If the borrowing was for useless goods, it may point out a possible problem. So, if that borrowing was unnecessary I'd give them a B. If that borrowing was to get an educaiton and raise the income to 50k/year, then that family gets an A. You can run a deficit and do just fine. The key is that the deficit is small and helps the future.

Raiding the SS surplus is not a small deficit and it does not help the future. And in many cases, the spending wasn't needed to begin with. Thus it is one bad grade in a see of mostly good grades. Overall it isn't a failure. But it isn't an A+ either. That is the biggest problem with debating on P&N, everyone assumes it must be black or white. There are many shades of grey in between. Bush doesn't have to get an A or an F. He can be given a B, C, or D grade. I think I'm the only one willing to give a middling grade on politicians, on the economy, etc.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
It's the Democrats' way of taxing the poor without making it look like they tax the poor.

Why make this issue a R vs D issue? I remember Gore wanting to protect the SS surplus but he just missed winning the election. Bush proposed and received a massive tax cut but he didn't cut the taxes of the working poor who only pay SS/medicare taxes.

You could try to blame the democrats solely. But recent evidence shows the blame resides on the other side too. Both sides (especially the Rs in the last 50 years) have been wasting massive amounts of money. If they didn't waste money, they wouldn't need to raid the SS surplus. If they didn't raid the SS surplus, we wouldn't have this problem.

Of course he didn't; that was the point. Hike the FICA tax to ridiculously overbearing levels, then set it up so it can't be lowered because of their pyramid scheme.

The fact that a SS "surplus" existed in the first place is a problem.

Gore and his buddy had 8 years to do what they wanted with Social Security.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Easy. Raise taxes a fraction of a percent. BAM! SS safe for another 60 years.

Seriously, SS is one of the most successful government collection agencies. IT MAKES A PROFIT! There is no SS problem. The real problem is health insurance, and Medicare.

The SS 'problem' is one of the most overblown things in this country. Leave it alone. There are plenty of other, much more important things to spend political capital on. Too bad Bush thought his eked out 2% margin was a mandate.

Because of demographics which arent in our favor starting right about now.
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

Here's my take on what you posted:
1. Cut the programs which are causing these deficits: War in Iraq, promoting democracy abroad.
2. Rescind the recent tax cuts - to improve the general fund.
3. Get the general fund to start paying back the IOU's to Social Security in a phased manner.
4. Implement the lockbox on Social Security.
5. Remove the income cap on Social Security.
6. Allow those who want to work after their retirement age - but their SS payout will be reduced for the period that they work (after retirement) on a sliding scale.
7. Consider SS income as income and tax it - but with a higher deductible.

These itself should make SS solvent like never before.

In addition.
8. Pass a balanced budget amendment.
9. Except for extraordinary circumstances, penalize those administrations who do not balance the budget.

My lunch break over - gotta get back to work.

 

[Jaskalas]

Well more taxes, duh?! Taxes grow on trees don?t they?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just want them paying taxes, that's where my plan starts and ends.

Well, if you aren't a citizen, you shouldn't be getting SS, so you shouldn't pay SS taxes. All your plan does is have them pay income taxes. That is a noble idea, but it doesn't solve our problem in this thread. I do see what you were going for, make them pay SS taxes and NOT get SS benefits. Interesting take on the subject. I don't think it'll go over very well. And it isn't a long term solution - what if in 2050 we don't have a large guest worker population?

Right, I never said they would get SS. Remember, as a guest worker, they can only be here 2-3 years or thereabouts. And remember there's going to be a significant population of guest workers, say 10 - 15 million (convert the current illegals to guest workers). Put those people on payroll and start collecting taxes and see how far it goes to helping keep SS solvent.

And why wouldn't it go over well? The guest workers themselves aren't citizens so they don't really get a say in how this works.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just want them paying taxes, that's where my plan starts and ends.

Well, if you aren't a citizen, you shouldn't be getting SS, so you shouldn't pay SS taxes. All your plan does is have them pay income taxes. That is a noble idea, but it doesn't solve our problem in this thread. I do see what you were going for, make them pay SS taxes and NOT get SS benefits. Interesting take on the subject. I don't think it'll go over very well. And it isn't a long term solution - what if in 2050 we don't have a large guest worker population?

Right, I never said they would get SS. Remember, as a guest worker, they can only be here 2-3 years or thereabouts. And remember there's going to be a significant population of guest workers, say 10 - 15 million (convert the current illegals to guest workers). Put those people on payroll and start collecting taxes and see how far it goes to helping keep SS solvent.

And why wouldn't it go over well? The guest workers themselves aren't citizens so they don't really get a say in how this works.

I expect the Dems to push for all people living in the USA to be able to vote.

Remember it's a favorite theme of theirs to claim Republicans don't want people voting. So it seems obvious to me that the Democratic party will follow up this immigration bill with a move to allow them to vote. This might take five or ten years to muster up the courage for it, but I fully expect them to do it.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Genx87
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

So what is your opinion of the SS surplus now going to the general fund? Are you implying that it is ok for it to go in but not back out?

And are you finally admitting that we have some problems with this economy? Ie we are ignoring future problems to make today's numbers look good.

No, I certainly do not agree with the politicians skimming off the top the SS surplus, and that should definitely go into some kind of fund that can only be used for SS payments. I think the SS program is fine if they stop raping it. Unfortunately, for politicians the SS program is their Goose that lays the golden egg, and they are loath to give up the billions they get from it.

Ultimately I think a major tightening of the belts is in store for America, but overall I am in favor of one of the most successful government programs this country has come up with.

the SS surplus, and that should definitely go into some kind of fund that can only be used for SS payments
We could call this a "locked box"
Oh wait, that was Al Gores plan.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: zendari
The fact that a SS "surplus" existed in the first place is a problem.

Yes, it was a problem. But in all realistic spending patterns, you need a few years of small surplusses to offset a few years of small deficits. We shouldn't be afraid of temporary small surplusses. They are necessary for long term success. However, the legislation in 1965 really did serious harm to our future. We need to repeal that work that made a SS surplus go into general funds to be spent.

Gore and his buddy had 8 years to do what they wanted with Social Security.

They made changes in 1993 and pushed hard in 1999/2000. The Republican controlled congress refused to change it then. That is all a president can and should do - push for change and hope it comes to his desk to sign. So, since Bush has done nothing in 6 years, by your logic does that mean he and any future Republican presidential candidate can't do anything in the next 2 years? Sometimes you have to wait for the proper timing for legislation. There is nothing wrong with making a mild change in the first few years and then waiting for the next president to continue the changes.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
Crash and Burn

Then your glorious Ayn Randian paradise will emerge! :thumbsup:

It is of course ironic that the lyrics to the song deals with someone in need/trouble and the singer telling that person he will be there for that person if no one else will. That you are not alone.

so I guess Zendari is for helping those in need so maybe he supports means testing SS?
----------------
A relatively easy fix is to lift the cap on income that is subject to the SS tax. This would extend the life of SS for quite a ways. Also stop spending the excess SS revenues on non-SS items. I don't plan on depending solely on SS for my retirement but it should be a last resort for older folks that need it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I just want them paying taxes, that's where my plan starts and ends.

Well, if you aren't a citizen, you shouldn't be getting SS, so you shouldn't pay SS taxes. All your plan does is have them pay income taxes. That is a noble idea, but it doesn't solve our problem in this thread. I do see what you were going for, make them pay SS taxes and NOT get SS benefits. Interesting take on the subject. I don't think it'll go over very well. And it isn't a long term solution - what if in 2050 we don't have a large guest worker population?

Right, I never said they would get SS. Remember, as a guest worker, they can only be here 2-3 years or thereabouts. And remember there's going to be a significant population of guest workers, say 10 - 15 million (convert the current illegals to guest workers). Put those people on payroll and start collecting taxes and see how far it goes to helping keep SS solvent.

And why wouldn't it go over well? The guest workers themselves aren't citizens so they don't really get a say in how this works.

I expect the Dems to push for all people living in the USA to be able to vote.

Remember it's a favorite theme of theirs to claim Republicans don't want people voting. So it seems obvious to me that the Democratic party will follow up this immigration bill with a move to allow them to vote. This might take five or ten years to muster up the courage for it, but I fully expect them to do it.

I suppose, but remember they're called "guest workers" for a reason. They're not citizens and therefore they do not receive the benefits of being one. No voting. Nothing preventing a guest worker from petitioning to become a citizen subject to normal procedure, controls and limitations, however while they're here under the program - they must have taxes deducted.

BTW, I'm not clear if this is how the proposed guest worker program would work, but it's certainly the way I'd want to see it work.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
It's the Democrats' way of taxing the poor without making it look like they tax the poor.

Why make this issue a R vs D issue? I remember Gore wanting to protect the SS surplus but he just missed winning the election. Bush proposed and received a massive tax cut but he didn't cut the taxes of the working poor who only pay SS/medicare taxes.

You could try to blame the democrats solely. But recent evidence shows the blame resides on the other side too. Both sides (especially the Rs in the last 50 years) have been wasting massive amounts of money. If they didn't waste money, they wouldn't need to raid the SS surplus. If they didn't raid the SS surplus, we wouldn't have this problem.

Of course he didn't; that was the point. Hike the FICA tax to ridiculously overbearing levels, then set it up so it can't be lowered because of their pyramid scheme.

The fact that a SS "surplus" existed in the first place is a problem.

Gore and his buddy had 8 years to do what they wanted with Social Security.

Yes, Clinton and Gore fixed Social Security by enabling surpluses as far as the eye can see. Even Bush said there were surpluses as far as the eye can see. Huge surpluses.
And Bush decided to wreck Social Security and our country with tax breaks weighted towards the rich and with unlimited spending .

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
It's the Democrats' way of taxing the poor without making it look like they tax the poor.

Why make this issue a R vs D issue? I remember Gore wanting to protect the SS surplus but he just missed winning the election. Bush proposed and received a massive tax cut but he didn't cut the taxes of the working poor who only pay SS/medicare taxes.

You could try to blame the democrats solely. But recent evidence shows the blame resides on the other side too. Both sides (especially the Rs in the last 50 years) have been wasting massive amounts of money. If they didn't waste money, they wouldn't need to raid the SS surplus. If they didn't raid the SS surplus, we wouldn't have this problem.

You have stated this in a couple of recent posts, but it is completely foolish to blame repuiblicans for overspending for the last 50 years. It has only been in the last 15 years that they have wrestled the house away from democrats and only recently have they controlled both the house and senate. I will agree with republs have been quite a disappoint fiscally since they control house/senate and presidency.

You can attempt to blame reagan for the deficts of the 80s, but the democrats also increased every spending bill he sent to congress.

You at least need be honest here.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: zendari
The fact that a SS "surplus" existed in the first place is a problem.

Yes, it was a problem. But in all realistic spending patterns, you need a few years of small surplusses to offset a few years of small deficits. We shouldn't be afraid of temporary small surplusses. They are necessary for long term success. However, the legislation in 1965 really did serious harm to our future. We need to repeal that work that made a SS surplus go into general funds to be spent.

Gore and his buddy had 8 years to do what they wanted with Social Security.

They made changes in 1993 and pushed hard in 1999/2000. The Republican controlled congress refused to change it then. That is all a president can and should do - push for change and hope it comes to his desk to sign. So, since Bush has done nothing in 6 years, by your logic does that mean he and any future Republican presidential candidate can't do anything in the next 2 years? Sometimes you have to wait for the proper timing for legislation. There is nothing wrong with making a mild change in the first few years and then waiting for the next president to continue the changes.

I dont recall there being a hard push on SS reford during that time period. I do recall the lockbox being mentioned, but there ware no details on what that lockbox looked like.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Easy. Raise taxes a fraction of a percent. BAM! SS safe for another 60 years.

Seriously, SS is one of the most successful government collection agencies. IT MAKES A PROFIT! There is no SS problem. The real problem is health insurance, and Medicare.

The SS 'problem' is one of the most overblown things in this country. Leave it alone. There are plenty of other, much more important things to spend political capital on. Too bad Bush thought his eked out 2% margin was a mandate.

Because of demographics which arent in our favor starting right about now.
I would suggest looking at the SS trustee estimates for 2040, a 1 trillion dollar SS deficit. Where does the money needed to make this up come from?

The general fund! You think our deficits are crazy now, wait until we have to drag that anchor along.

Here's my take on what you posted:
1. Cut the programs which are causing these deficits: War in Iraq, promoting democracy abroad.
2. Rescind the recent tax cuts - to improve the general fund.
3. Get the general fund to start paying back the IOU's to Social Security in a phased manner.
4. Implement the lockbox on Social Security.
5. Remove the income cap on Social Security.
6. Allow those who want to work after their retirement age - but their SS payout will be reduced for the period that they work (after retirement) on a sliding scale.
7. Consider SS income as income and tax it - but with a higher deductible.

These itself should make SS solvent like never before.

In addition.
8. Pass a balanced budget amendment.
9. Except for extraordinary circumstances, penalize those administrations who do not balance the budget.

My lunch break over - gotta get back to work.

1. You cant pick and choose programs you think are causing deficits. All goverment spending causes them.
2. I would disagree. The last thing our goverment needs is more money.
3. How do you want it to do that? goverment controlled investment account? coffee can in the whitehouse backyard? private accounts?
4. see aboive. What do you want to lockbox to look like.
5. only solves 1/2 the ss problem.