4 ms·

Unfortunately, the data doesn't agree with you: Social Security: 21% Health: 14% Medicare: 13% Income Security: 13% National Defense: 13% Ref: https://fis

Unfortunately, the data doesn't agree with you: Social Security: 21% Health: 14% Medicare: 13% Income Security: 13% National Defense: 13% Ref: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#federal-spending-overview https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget. So that's like saying your health insurance premiums and 401K contributions are part of the federal budget, which is obviously ridiculous.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget They're absolutely part of the budget [1]. They're just not part of the discretionary budget. Defence is the largest discretionary line. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget_fy22.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget...
- caseysoftware 3y ago
  Then you should write to that website and explain why they're wrong. I bet treasury.gov would appreciate it.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    The website is fine, it is your use of it that is wrong. From where I stand, those errors have been well-documented by other commenters, so I don't know that further writing on the subject is necessary. Or perhaps you have a more thorough rebuttal to what was a reasonable comment.
- shuckles 3y ago
  I thought Social Security being fully funded was an accounting fiction, and it is accruing meaningful liabilities for the general budget?
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    That’s exactly what it is. An accounting fiction. Same thing with the supposed “Fed balance sheet.”
    - taeric 3y ago
      I'm curious if you could expand on what you mean about it being an accounting fiction. I've never seen anything that didn't show it would be fine without funds getting siphoned out of it.
      - bradleyjg 3y ago
        I mean it doesn’t have an independent legal existence. You pay social security taxes to the federal government and the government pays out social security checks. It’s only political rhetoric that connects the two. At any time congress can alter anything about the system. If your social security tax payments created a legally vested property right in some account, protected by the due process clause, then it would be a different situation—-not an accounting fiction.
        taeric 3y ago
        Since it is the government, anything at that level would still be at the whims of, the government. Such that I don't really see your point? Are you wanting it to be argued that they'd have to pass a resolution to change whether or not they can use the funds? Isn't that basically what already happened? You could argue that it could have been done in a different way, but the odds are silly high that that wouldn't have changed anything. Budgetary spend and allocation is controlled by congress, such that it would have only changed the nature of the resolution. More, you would just be changing the nature of the "fiction." Akin to saying the federal reserve is separate from the government. I mean, yeah, but it is also established by the government. And I expect that winds of the controlling party would blow it about as well as it does the EPA and such.
dave4420 3y ago
To that 13% add the 5% spent on veterans services.
taeric 3y ago
This is kind of misleading in its own way, though? Social Security is also where a large portion of the revenue comes from, per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html. I suppose you can make some arguments that we make money from military. But it always feels weird to say we need SS cuts when the data equally shows that we don't. Uncap the max on SS tax, and it would look hilariously fine.
- rndmwlk 3y ago
  Also, social security contributes to taxable income.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget. So that's like saying your health insurance premiums and 401K contributions are part of the federal budget, which is obviously ridiculous.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Social Security and medicare are self funded via payroll taxes and aren't part of the federal budget They're absolutely part of the budget [1]. They're just not part of the discretionary budget. Defence is the largest discretionary line. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget_fy22.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/budget...
caseysoftware 3y ago
Then you should write to that website and explain why they're wrong. I bet treasury.gov would appreciate it.
- mikestew 3y ago
  The website is fine, it is your use of it that is wrong. From where I stand, those errors have been well-documented by other commenters, so I don't know that further writing on the subject is necessary. Or perhaps you have a more thorough rebuttal to what was a reasonable comment.
shuckles 3y ago
I thought Social Security being fully funded was an accounting fiction, and it is accruing meaningful liabilities for the general budget?
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  That’s exactly what it is. An accounting fiction. Same thing with the supposed “Fed balance sheet.”
  - taeric 3y ago
    I'm curious if you could expand on what you mean about it being an accounting fiction. I've never seen anything that didn't show it would be fine without funds getting siphoned out of it.
    - bradleyjg 3y ago
      I mean it doesn’t have an independent legal existence. You pay social security taxes to the federal government and the government pays out social security checks. It’s only political rhetoric that connects the two. At any time congress can alter anything about the system. If your social security tax payments created a legally vested property right in some account, protected by the due process clause, then it would be a different situation—-not an accounting fiction.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Since it is the government, anything at that level would still be at the whims of, the government. Such that I don't really see your point? Are you wanting it to be argued that they'd have to pass a resolution to change whether or not they can use the funds? Isn't that basically what already happened? You could argue that it could have been done in a different way, but the odds are silly high that that wouldn't have changed anything. Budgetary spend and allocation is controlled by congress, such that it would have only changed the nature of the resolution. More, you would just be changing the nature of the "fiction." Akin to saying the federal reserve is separate from the government. I mean, yeah, but it is also established by the government. And I expect that winds of the controlling party would blow it about as well as it does the EPA and such.

dave4420 3y ago

To that 13% add the 5% spent on veterans services.

taeric 3y ago

This is kind of misleading in its own way, though? Social Security is also where a large portion of the revenue comes from, per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html. I suppose you can make some arguments that we make money from military. But it always feels weird to say we need SS cuts when the data equally shows that we don't. Uncap the max on SS tax, and it would look hilariously fine.

rndmwlk 3y ago
Also, social security contributes to taxable income.