6 ms·

The Social Security Trust fund generally runs a surplus (as recently as 2014 it added $25 billion.) However it's projected that around 2030-2034 the number of r

by wang_li 10y ago

The Social Security Trust fund generally runs a surplus (as recently as 2014 it added $25 billion.) However it's projected that around 2030-2034 the number of recipients will be drawing more than is being paid in. At that point your statement will become more correct than it currently is.

thraway2016 10y ago
...the SSTF holds exclusively US Treasury notes and bonds as assets. You're describing a distinction without a difference, as other parts of the USG have already spent the surplus.
- guelo 10y ago
  Sure, but US Treasuries are considered some of the safest assets in the world.
- wang_li 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as it assumes that the US won't be paying back its debts. Do you also consider that money you deposit into your checking and savings accounts as having disappeared into a black hole?
  - thraway2016 10y ago
    I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as it assumes the exponential function will stop working in the near future. I'm coming from the perspective that there is neither a short term nor long term plan to address the inevitable default of the US government, decades hence. We WILL either default, monetize, or sell federal land. Math won't stop working in my lifetime.
  - jimmyk 10y ago
    The point is that in order for government to pay back its debts, it has to tax people (or fire up the printing press).
    - mywittyname 10y ago
      There's nothing wrong with "firing up the printing press." The US government will be in debt for the rest of its existence and the balance of that debt will likely increase every year. The Federal Reserve openly targets a 3% inflation rate and that inflation is going to come from ye olde printing press. IMHO, better this inflation come in the form of SS payments than payouts to military contractors.
fr0sty 10y ago
> as recently as 2014 it added $25 billion Yes, but that is $25B out of total receipts of $884B[0]. For every $1.00 paid in over $.97 was paid back out to beneficiaries. In 2015 it was $.975 and 2016 will probably be higher still. According to this page[1] the trust fund will be depleted by 2035. I know that is a projection and things can change, but to say there is no room for concern borders on hubris. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  We could just eliminate the contribution cap. Then it keeps working in perpetuity, because we'd actually be taxing the people who have money.
  - Kadin 10y ago
    That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. Which, as you can see from comments upthread, is -- even though I personally don't think it's true -- one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat ("it's your money", "you paid into it and you should get your money out", etc.). Positioning it in this way makes voters feel like they have a personal investment in the system that they need to protect, which is clever because people generally hate having something taken away, much more than they dislike not receiving something (even if the amounts are the same). When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general. And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies who have a significant vested interest in making sure it goes away. I would not expect it to last long under those conditions.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. So bloody what? I've got no problem taking from the rich to fund a basic income to keep the elderly off cat-food. I've got parents and a grandmother left who need Social Security. >When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general. It already is attacked during regular political pendulum swings. Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security.
optimuspaul 10y ago
(wild conspiracy theories to follow, intended to be humorous) It's all good, SS can go on forever. As long as shootings increase, gun control laws are kept at bay, and healthcare remains unavailable to all or at least expensive odds are good a growing minority of workers will never collect SS benefits. It's fairly genius actually. It all stems from the American Dream, one of the most dangerous yet lucrative schemes ever devised. Get workers to increase productivity to boost the economy with the hope and "promise" of a big payday one day. When it became to crumble a new "promise" was devised, this time with the workforce paying the bill. Retirement was the 20th centuries American Dream. Healthcare is coming in to save the day, but not the way we expected.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  >As long as shootings increase Gun violence is trending down and rather low historically. So I guess SS really is doomed. https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg
crdoconnor 10y ago
Simply removing the payroll cap and taxing all brackets equally would fix that: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/the-7-biggest-myths-and-lies-about-social-security.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/the-7-biggest-myths-a... Social security's 2030 "insolvency" was a political decision not an economic inevitability.

by wang_li 10y ago

thraway2016 10y ago

...the SSTF holds exclusively US Treasury notes and bonds as assets. You're describing a distinction without a difference, as other parts of the USG have already spent the surplus.

guelo 10y ago
Sure, but US Treasuries are considered some of the safest assets in the world.
wang_li 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as it assumes that the US won't be paying back its debts. Do you also consider that money you deposit into your checking and savings accounts as having disappeared into a black hole?
- thraway2016 10y ago
  I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as it assumes the exponential function will stop working in the near future. I'm coming from the perspective that there is neither a short term nor long term plan to address the inevitable default of the US government, decades hence. We WILL either default, monetize, or sell federal land. Math won't stop working in my lifetime.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  The point is that in order for government to pay back its debts, it has to tax people (or fire up the printing press).
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    There's nothing wrong with "firing up the printing press." The US government will be in debt for the rest of its existence and the balance of that debt will likely increase every year. The Federal Reserve openly targets a 3% inflation rate and that inflation is going to come from ye olde printing press. IMHO, better this inflation come in the form of SS payments than payouts to military contractors.

fr0sty 10y ago

> as recently as 2014 it added $25 billion Yes, but that is $25B out of total receipts of $884B[0]. For every $1.00 paid in over $.97 was paid back out to beneficiaries. In 2015 it was $.975 and 2016 will probably be higher still. According to this page[1] the trust fund will be depleted by 2035. I know that is a projection and things can change, but to say there is no room for concern borders on hubris. [0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
We could just eliminate the contribution cap. Then it keeps working in perpetuity, because we'd actually be taxing the people who have money.
- Kadin 10y ago
  That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. Which, as you can see from comments upthread, is -- even though I personally don't think it's true -- one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat ("it's your money", "you paid into it and you should get your money out", etc.). Positioning it in this way makes voters feel like they have a personal investment in the system that they need to protect, which is clever because people generally hate having something taken away, much more than they dislike not receiving something (even if the amounts are the same). When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general. And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies who have a significant vested interest in making sure it goes away. I would not expect it to last long under those conditions.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program, and not a bald faced tax-and-redistribute system. So bloody what? I've got no problem taking from the rich to fund a basic income to keep the elderly off cat-food. I've got parents and a grandmother left who need Social Security. >When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general. It already is attacked during regular political pendulum swings. Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security.

optimuspaul 10y ago

(wild conspiracy theories to follow, intended to be humorous) It's all good, SS can go on forever. As long as shootings increase, gun control laws are kept at bay, and healthcare remains unavailable to all or at least expensive odds are good a growing minority of workers will never collect SS benefits. It's fairly genius actually. It all stems from the American Dream, one of the most dangerous yet lucrative schemes ever devised. Get workers to increase productivity to boost the economy with the hope and "promise" of a big payday one day. When it became to crumble a new "promise" was devised, this time with the workforce paying the bill. Retirement was the 20th centuries American Dream. Healthcare is coming in to save the day, but not the way we expected.

cmdrfred 10y ago
>As long as shootings increase Gun violence is trending down and rather low historically. So I guess SS really is doomed. https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg

crdoconnor 10y ago

Simply removing the payroll cap and taxing all brackets equally would fix that: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/the-7-biggest-myths-and-lies-about-social-security.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/the-7-biggest-myths-a... Social security's 2030 "insolvency" was a political decision not an economic inevitability.