4 ms·

The irony here is that nowhere in my original post did I claim there was no commingling of funds. In fact, I was trying to point out that our taxes were actual

The irony here is that nowhere in my original post did I claim there was no commingling of funds. In fact, I was trying to point out that our taxes were actually HIGHER than most people think due to FICA. Did I say these programs were covered? My point was that they were taxed separately. And to answer your question, the dirty little secret of government is that they raid the trust funds. Why else would the trust fund have interest income? But it's not really from income taxes, it's from raising money through issuing debt. I was not making the point you thought I was making.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
Money is fungible, my friend. A dollar of tax income is equivalent to a dollar of debt. The trust fund, to be clear, is only for social security. It is not for Medicare. I should point out for full accuracy that Medicare part A also has a trust fund that is similarly draining (although this one is almost insolvent), but most of the programs in Medicare are not funded by the part A trust. Final edit: The Medicare trust fund also has a generous contribution from "general revenue" of the government - aka tax dollars.
- caspper69 2y ago
  It's only fungible at the point of expenditure. Tax income is a dollar in hand that creates no liability; debt must be repaid with interest. Not sure I get your second point- I am aware of what is meant by the trust fund; actually, I thought it was the only one- you enlightened me about Medicare's. (If you re-read my post, you will see my use of the plural "funds" in "trust funds" was referring to the money itself, not multiple funds). Anyway, I see 12-years of reserves at current projections for the HI (Part A fund for Hospital services), while the SMI (Part B for Doctors and outpatient services) isn't even listed- this fund is the one that seems to be the dog. Wow. And it's not even close. Yowza. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum I don't think it's fair to bring Medicaid into the discussion. There's no separate tax for it, and the vast majority of people don't receive it- it's a subsidy to the poor. If you'd like to discuss that I'd be happy to, but I'm more comfortable on fiscal realities than judging what amount to local humanitarian efforts; my opinions might not be well received because they are not particularly generous. Additionally, I think it is far outside the scope of my original point that people's taxes are much higher than they think. I'll close on this note: I think it's important that people speak in specifics, especially in trying times. Both platitudes and demagoguery are damaging to the public discourse, as is information presented out of context and the substitution of opinion for fact. I spoke out of my rear-end on Medicaid (you did kind of catch me out of left field), and I generally try not to do that. I did some more digging (unlike SSA, they are not very forthcoming), and I'll take my medicine. Thanks for the eye opener. Take care.

pclmulqdq 2y ago

Money is fungible, my friend. A dollar of tax income is equivalent to a dollar of debt. The trust fund, to be clear, is only for social security. It is not for Medicare. I should point out for full accuracy that Medicare part A also has a trust fund that is similarly draining (although this one is almost insolvent), but most of the programs in Medicare are not funded by the part A trust. Final edit: The Medicare trust fund also has a generous contribution from "general revenue" of the government - aka tax dollars.

caspper69 2y ago
It's only fungible at the point of expenditure. Tax income is a dollar in hand that creates no liability; debt must be repaid with interest. Not sure I get your second point- I am aware of what is meant by the trust fund; actually, I thought it was the only one- you enlightened me about Medicare's. (If you re-read my post, you will see my use of the plural "funds" in "trust funds" was referring to the money itself, not multiple funds). Anyway, I see 12-years of reserves at current projections for the HI (Part A fund for Hospital services), while the SMI (Part B for Doctors and outpatient services) isn't even listed- this fund is the one that seems to be the dog. Wow. And it's not even close. Yowza. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum I don't think it's fair to bring Medicaid into the discussion. There's no separate tax for it, and the vast majority of people don't receive it- it's a subsidy to the poor. If you'd like to discuss that I'd be happy to, but I'm more comfortable on fiscal realities than judging what amount to local humanitarian efforts; my opinions might not be well received because they are not particularly generous. Additionally, I think it is far outside the scope of my original point that people's taxes are much higher than they think. I'll close on this note: I think it's important that people speak in specifics, especially in trying times. Both platitudes and demagoguery are damaging to the public discourse, as is information presented out of context and the substitution of opinion for fact. I spoke out of my rear-end on Medicaid (you did kind of catch me out of left field), and I generally try not to do that. I did some more digging (unlike SSA, they are not very forthcoming), and I'll take my medicine. Thanks for the eye opener. Take care.