4 ms·

> 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 bene

by 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.
    - djrogers 10y ago
      > Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security. That shows a grave misunderstanding of both proposed solutions to the SA insolvency problem.
      - somebehemoth 10y ago
        I am genuinely curious. Please elaborate the misunderstanding. Thank you.
  - crdoconnor 10y ago
    >That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program It would have been called mandatory social savings if that was its intended purpose. It's not. It never was. It's social security. >one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat: "it's your money" This is actually one of the arguments used to try and justify privatizing it and handing over the money to Wall Street to invest instead (Bush tried to do exactly this and Obama made noises about it). >And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies It ALREADY has a lot of very wealthy enemies who are trying to privatize it. One of the most prominent is Stan Druckenmiller, who is fairly open about inciting intergenerational warfare - telling "millenials" that "boomers" are the cause of their problems and that the "fix" is privatizing social security and austerity: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-people-throw-under-the-bus-granny-or-billionaire-hedgie-stan-druckenmiller.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-peop...
anigbrowl 10y ago
Well we know what the alternatives are; cut benefits or expand immigration to balance out the demographic bulge of retirees.

by fr0sty 10y ago

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.
  - djrogers 10y ago
    > Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security. That shows a grave misunderstanding of both proposed solutions to the SA insolvency problem.
    - somebehemoth 10y ago
      I am genuinely curious. Please elaborate the misunderstanding. Thank you.
- crdoconnor 10y ago
  >That would eliminate even the thin handkerchief of SS being a sort of mandatory government-run savings program It would have been called mandatory social savings if that was its intended purpose. It's not. It never was. It's social security. >one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat: "it's your money" This is actually one of the arguments used to try and justify privatizing it and handing over the money to Wall Street to invest instead (Bush tried to do exactly this and Obama made noises about it). >And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies It ALREADY has a lot of very wealthy enemies who are trying to privatize it. One of the most prominent is Stan Druckenmiller, who is fairly open about inciting intergenerational warfare - telling "millenials" that "boomers" are the cause of their problems and that the "fix" is privatizing social security and austerity: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-people-throw-under-the-bus-granny-or-billionaire-hedgie-stan-druckenmiller.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-peop...

anigbrowl 10y ago

Well we know what the alternatives are; cut benefits or expand immigration to balance out the demographic bulge of retirees.