?
?
You not going to get social security, the GOP will make sure of that.
It's already been increased.
Trolly Trollerson wrote:
You not going to get social security, the GOP will make sure of that.
God, I hope this is true. Even after paying tens of thousands of dollars in SS taxes, I'd rather see the program end today than persist another 35 years until I'm retired.
Make a program for impoverished seniors and fund it out of the general fund. No reason that people should be paying for the retirement of a middle-class guy like me. Nor is there any reason that I should be paying for current middle-class retired people.
You pay for your own SS benefits. Check your pay stub.
They'll set bands just like they do now. But they will be more drastic... Hopefully. For example,
Anyone born after 1990, the ages are 70, 72, 74.
Anyone born after 2000, the ages are 72, 74, 76.
No point to phase it out. Once the glut of baby boomers pass the system will eventually correct itself. You have to look at a longer horizon than... Oh 1 year if you want to understand how it will fix itself. Non baby boomers already outnumber baby boomers so we should start to see some progress in the coming years.
Helloooooo? wrote:
You pay for your own SS benefits. Check your pay stub.
How about you check what the first "S" in "SS" stands for?
I know what it stands for. So what?
Try to keep up wrote:
It's already been increased.
Pretty obvious the OP is referring to any future increases.
Helloooooooo? wrote:
I know what it stands for. So what?
No you clearly do not.
You are not going to get SS, the Democrats will ensure the government will not have any money left by the time it is for you to retire.
My guess is you don't know. Well, it's "Social". There, now you know.
Helloooooo? wrote:
You pay for your own SS benefits. Check your pay stub.
I hate to break it to you, but that money is not accumulating in a special account with your name on it.
You may not have to worry about this issue.
You may be dead by then.
facepalm wrote:
Helloooooo? wrote:You pay for your own SS benefits. Check your pay stub.
I hate to break it to you, but that money is not accumulating in a special account with your name on it.
It is in a special account and it is accumulating, though my name is not on the account. So you were 1 for 3.
Hellooooooooo? wrote:
facepalm wrote:I hate to break it to you, but that money is not accumulating in a special account with your name on it.
It is in a special account and it is accumulating, though my name is not on the account. So you were 1 for 3.
No. All of the revenue (i.e., money) generated by the payroll tax goes into the U.S. Treasury, like all other revenue raised by taxes, and so on. All federal spending, in turn, is drawn out of the U.S. Treasury. Accordingly, each year that the federal government spends more money than it takes in (i.e., runs a "deficit"), by definition, no money is "accumulating." The federal debt grows.
The SS "trust fund" does not contain money. That's the issue. It doesn't matter what one might argue the trust fund contains ("worthless" IOUs v. a "binding" commitment to pay, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah). The only thing that matters is what the trust does not contain. And what it does not contain is money.
Social Security benefits must be paid in money; when the government send a retiree his or her monthly benefits, those benefits, by definition, must be in the form of money. Thus, whatever the trust fund contains must be converted into money -- i.e., what's in the trust fund must be "traded in" for money brought in from other sources (e.g., taxes, government borrowing (i.e., more government debt), etc.)
In sum, money is not accumulating in any special account. Whether or not somebody's name is attached to some account is of no pertinence, one way or the other. If you think otherwise, I promise you, you couldn't be more wrong.
Sounds like a typical bank account.
Gerty wrote:
Sounds like a typical bank account.
Are you joking? I hope so.
A "typical bank account" has money in it. At least, mine does. Look to the right hand column on the statement, where it says "balance." The number right under that represents money. Not debt. Not a "promise to pay." If it says "1,500.00," I can go to the bank and ask for $1,500 in cash. That the bank itself may not have, at any particular point in time, $1,500.00 in cash sitting around in its vault isn't the issue. The issue is that the $1,500.00 in my account still represents money, my money.
What's in the SS trust fund isn't that. What's in there doesn't represent money. What's in there is a promise from one part of the federal government to another part of the federal government to go out and get that $1,500.00 -- from some other source of government money -- on demand.
Camazotz wrote:
What's in the SS trust fund isn't that. What's in there doesn't represent money. What's in there is a promise from one part of the federal government to another part of the federal government to go out and get that $1,500.00 -- from some other source of government money -- on demand.
So then, it's money. Just as the actual $1500 may not be physically in the bank through which you've opened an account but can be obtained on demand, the social security "promise" represents $X that may not be physically in the account, but can be obtained on demand.