4 ms·

Social Security is a pension system and should not be counted as an expense. Or, at the minimum the payments to vested retirees should not be counted. Social

Social Security is a pension system and should not be counted as an expense. Or, at the minimum the payments to vested retirees should not be counted. Social Security is not in trouble and the part that has trouble is easily fixable. Medicare is actually a benefit to corporations. Corporations shifted retiree benefits (health care among such benefits) to Social Security, 401(k), and Medicare. Without Medicare worker would demand more money. Besides, it is unseemly for a country as rich as the U.S. to have millions of uninsurable people dying prematurely. Millions more than it currenlty has, that is. Your statements about unions are without a basis is fact. It is quite obvious that labor, overall, has very little power in the country. Furthemore a majority of non-defense workers for the U.S. government are contractors. We live in an environment of regulatory capture. At the very minimum, the large corporations ought to at least pay to keep the system that they've captured.

tba 15y ago
> Social Security is not in trouble This is a fringe viewpoint at best. With our current policies, the Congressional Budget Office predicts SS will become completely insolvent between 2036 and 2038 (p. 54 of http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-2...). The "easy" fix will require significant payroll tax increases, which seems politically unlikely considering we just REDUCED the FICA tax by 2%.
- yequalsx 15y ago
  From the document: Under its extended-baseline scenario, CBO estimates that over the next 75 years, the program has an actuarial shortfall equal to 1.6 percent of taxable payroll, or 0.6 percent of GDP (see Table 4-1). Thus, to bring the program into actuarial balance through 2085, payroll taxes could be increased immediately by 1.6 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount. The fix is easy (not taking into account the Republican party's irrational view on tax increases). Repeal the tax cut. And not increasing taxes leaves a small actuarial imbalance.
  - adestefan 15y ago
    Or just raise the wage base above the current $110,100.
- jellicle 15y ago
  Social Security cannot ever go "completely insolvent", which a cursory amount of education on the subject would teach you.
anamax 15y ago
> Or, at the minimum the payments to vested retirees should not be counted. There's no such thing as "vesting" wrt Social Security. All benefits are at the whim of Congress. Yes, including those being paid now. Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. (They could, of course, vote out incumbents in the next election, but that's no guarantee that the new rascals would restore the benefits.) > Besides, it is unseemly for a country as rich as the U.S. to have millions of uninsurable people dying prematurely. The US doesn't have "millions of uninsured dying prematurely". The available research suggests that insurance improves quality of life but doesn't have much effect on life-span. (The error bar goes from "no effect" to "there seems to be a very small effect".)
- yequalsx 15y ago
  Social Security pays some benefits to people who have not fully paid enough into the system to have their benefits covered. I wished to exclude these people from consideration and talked about the portion of beneficiaries who have. The latter group is a very large majority of beneficiaries and I used the term "vested" w.r.t. to this group. The point ought to have been clear and being pedantic on it is pointless. Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. I should have phrased my statement differently. As it is, it is incorrect. It is true to say that at present the situation is unseemly (and immoral). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569
  - anamax 15y ago
    >>Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. > You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. Are you suggesting that there's some law that gives SS recipients a claim on payouts or a constitutional provision? In the case of "a law", theu can be repealed by Congress and the judiciary won't stop (and shouldn't) stop them. If you're suggesting a constitutional provision, precisely which provision do you think guarantees SS "rights"? For example, http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ says "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." > It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. Not in the US. They have health coverage. What they don't have is insurance. Yes, there are limits on the "free" coverage in the US. Surely you don't believe that any place else is different.

tba 15y ago

> Social Security is not in trouble This is a fringe viewpoint at best. With our current policies, the Congressional Budget Office predicts SS will become completely insolvent between 2036 and 2038 (p. 54 of http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-2...). The "easy" fix will require significant payroll tax increases, which seems politically unlikely considering we just REDUCED the FICA tax by 2%.

yequalsx 15y ago
From the document: Under its extended-baseline scenario, CBO estimates that over the next 75 years, the program has an actuarial shortfall equal to 1.6 percent of taxable payroll, or 0.6 percent of GDP (see Table 4-1). Thus, to bring the program into actuarial balance through 2085, payroll taxes could be increased immediately by 1.6 percent of taxable payroll and kept at that higher rate, or scheduled benefits could be reduced by an equivalent amount. The fix is easy (not taking into account the Republican party's irrational view on tax increases). Repeal the tax cut. And not increasing taxes leaves a small actuarial imbalance.
- adestefan 15y ago
  Or just raise the wage base above the current $110,100.
jellicle 15y ago
Social Security cannot ever go "completely insolvent", which a cursory amount of education on the subject would teach you.

anamax 15y ago

> Or, at the minimum the payments to vested retirees should not be counted. There's no such thing as "vesting" wrt Social Security. All benefits are at the whim of Congress. Yes, including those being paid now. Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. (They could, of course, vote out incumbents in the next election, but that's no guarantee that the new rascals would restore the benefits.) > Besides, it is unseemly for a country as rich as the U.S. to have millions of uninsurable people dying prematurely. The US doesn't have "millions of uninsured dying prematurely". The available research suggests that insurance improves quality of life but doesn't have much effect on life-span. (The error bar goes from "no effect" to "there seems to be a very small effect".)

yequalsx 15y ago
Social Security pays some benefits to people who have not fully paid enough into the system to have their benefits covered. I wished to exclude these people from consideration and talked about the portion of beneficiaries who have. The latter group is a very large majority of beneficiaries and I used the term "vested" w.r.t. to this group. The point ought to have been clear and being pedantic on it is pointless. Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. I should have phrased my statement differently. As it is, it is incorrect. It is true to say that at present the situation is unseemly (and immoral). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569
- anamax 15y ago
  >>Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. > You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. Are you suggesting that there's some law that gives SS recipients a claim on payouts or a constitutional provision? In the case of "a law", theu can be repealed by Congress and the judiciary won't stop (and shouldn't) stop them. If you're suggesting a constitutional provision, precisely which provision do you think guarantees SS "rights"? For example, http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ says "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." > It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. Not in the US. They have health coverage. What they don't have is insurance. Yes, there are limits on the "free" coverage in the US. Surely you don't believe that any place else is different.