4 ms·

A) That surplus money was already been spent in the 1990s. B) Not true or relevant. B) Not true or relevant. >So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't ex

A) That surplus money was already been spent in the 1990s. B) Not true or relevant. B) Not true or relevant. >So if someone argues that trust fund doesn't exist, they are arguing that revenue from payroll taxes should finance tax cuts for those richer than them. Effectively transferring money from poor to rich. Again, not true at all. Notice how you can't actually answer the question I posed about how SS can actually get the money out of the trust "fund." The fund is empty and is quite literally only made of a IOUs from the general fund.

tunesmith 10y ago
Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. It's actually a lousy question because it proves nothing. Money is held in different accounts not because they are actually stored in physically different places, but because they are conceptually different, and because the concepts are not fungible. I do not (and in some cases cannot) transfer money between some of my different accounts at my brokerage even though all that money is ultimately in the same pool somewhere. In the case of the general fund and the trust fund, the trust fund surplus money was not spend in the 90s or at any other time since the surplus started growing again; it remained in surplus, and - counting its interest income - it remains in growing surplus until about 2019, at which point that surplus starts being dipped into until 2034. (Also note that historically, this has already happened. [1] There was a social security surplus, and then it got spent down partially in the late 70s, and then started growing again in the early 80s. Everyone got their checks.) Why is this distinction necessary? Again, because the general fund has gone into deficit. People like mason240 try to pretend that it hasn't gone into deficit as much as it has, because the people that are advantaged by the general fund deficit have a higher tax base than the people that have paid into payroll tax (on average). So why do we make this distinction? To protect against the transfer of money from the poor to the rich. Why do people like mason240 insist otherwise? For not other reason than to keep that money, and to weaken social security. [1]: https://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html
- mason240 10y ago
  >Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go: Imagine you borrowed money to a business. That business then spent the money and gave you an IOU. How is the business going to repay you when you want to withdraw? Like I said in my original comment, it will have to: A) Raise their prices. B) Cut spending (like employee benefits). C) Borrow from somewhere else. So much nonsense here in the rest of you comment. I think the best part is where you claim I have an agenda because I'm being factual, but you keep trying to shift the topic into taxing the rich.
  - tunesmith 10y ago
    The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. Your scenario is based on the assumption that "the business spent the money" and "gave you an IOU". When the fact is that the government did not "spend the trust fund", and there is no such thing as a social security IOU. As far as the general fund being in deficit, how they resolve that has nothing to do with social security, which has a healthy trust fund to draw upon until 2034, after which benefits will automatically shrink until payroll contributions are enough to fund the trust fund again. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html If on the very small chance you are not in favor of cutting social security in any sense, know that the argument that there "is no trust fund" and "it's just IOUs" is a right-wing argument, a right-wing frame, that is typically only advanced to justify cutting social security in some way. If you are not in favor of cutting social security, find different language. If you are, then be intellectually honest about your views that government has no role in doing what social security does, rather than engaging in myths about non-existence of trust funds.
    - mason240 9y ago
      >The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. It's YOUR comparison. What a troll.

tunesmith 10y ago

Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. It's actually a lousy question because it proves nothing. Money is held in different accounts not because they are actually stored in physically different places, but because they are conceptually different, and because the concepts are not fungible. I do not (and in some cases cannot) transfer money between some of my different accounts at my brokerage even though all that money is ultimately in the same pool somewhere. In the case of the general fund and the trust fund, the trust fund surplus money was not spend in the 90s or at any other time since the surplus started growing again; it remained in surplus, and - counting its interest income - it remains in growing surplus until about 2019, at which point that surplus starts being dipped into until 2034. (Also note that historically, this has already happened. [1] There was a social security surplus, and then it got spent down partially in the late 70s, and then started growing again in the early 80s. Everyone got their checks.) Why is this distinction necessary? Again, because the general fund has gone into deficit. People like mason240 try to pretend that it hasn't gone into deficit as much as it has, because the people that are advantaged by the general fund deficit have a higher tax base than the people that have paid into payroll tax (on average). So why do we make this distinction? To protect against the transfer of money from the poor to the rich. Why do people like mason240 insist otherwise? For not other reason than to keep that money, and to weaken social security. [1]: https://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html https://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html

mason240 10y ago
>Again, for the benefit of others, since this commenter has an agenda and won't be convinced - commenter also can't answer the question about how he can actually get money out of his own savings account. That account is empty and is quite literally only made of IOUs from the bank it is held at. These are two completely separate concepts, but if you insist on equating them, here we go: Imagine you borrowed money to a business. That business then spent the money and gave you an IOU. How is the business going to repay you when you want to withdraw? Like I said in my original comment, it will have to: A) Raise their prices. B) Cut spending (like employee benefits). C) Borrow from somewhere else. So much nonsense here in the rest of you comment. I think the best part is where you claim I have an agenda because I'm being factual, but you keep trying to shift the topic into taxing the rich.
- tunesmith 10y ago
  The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. Your scenario is based on the assumption that "the business spent the money" and "gave you an IOU". When the fact is that the government did not "spend the trust fund", and there is no such thing as a social security IOU. As far as the general fund being in deficit, how they resolve that has nothing to do with social security, which has a healthy trust fund to draw upon until 2034, after which benefits will automatically shrink until payroll contributions are enough to fund the trust fund again. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html If on the very small chance you are not in favor of cutting social security in any sense, know that the argument that there "is no trust fund" and "it's just IOUs" is a right-wing argument, a right-wing frame, that is typically only advanced to justify cutting social security in some way. If you are not in favor of cutting social security, find different language. If you are, then be intellectually honest about your views that government has no role in doing what social security does, rather than engaging in myths about non-existence of trust funds.
  - mason240 9y ago
    >The nonsense is that your comparison again has no relevance to the social security trust fund. It's YOUR comparison. What a troll.