Social Security Lockbox

[Riot]

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay.

I''d guess that most of the people on this list, less than 30 years of age, have very minimal to no self-funded retirement accounts. Social security is a fallback insurance - not intended to be a primary retirement. It's meant only to keep the elderly from starving and being on the street poor, as used to happen.

Medicare needs help, yes. And state Medicaid contributions are terrible (they talked about that when they passed the ACA, what stress the requirements would put on the states, which is why the feds will step in and help alot) But not SS, that is most certainly not in any panic state.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay. .

The Treasury held $70 billion in its account prior to borrowing $2 trillion so it could in part make this month's SS payments. The fact the SS fund holds nothing but IOU's from the Treasury should be a huge wake up call and seniors should never be concerned about receiving a check while SS is funded, especially when its balance is supposedly $3 trillion. The Fed government is sadly incapable of surviving all its giveaways w/o diverting 40% of tax money but it should certainly make an effort to start trying.

I think it prudent in the future to start funding SS with cash. The government should not be allowed to touch SS taxes for anything (including Cash for Clunkers) but for making SS payments period! Shame on Washington for 'borrowing' the seniors' retirement accounts on a promise. And this is as much the fault of republicans as it is the dems.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The Treasury held $70 billion in its account prior to borrowing $2 trillion so it could in part make this month's SS payments. The fact the SS fund holds nothing but IOU's from the Treasury should be a huge wake up call and seniors should never be concerned about receiving a check while SS is funded, especially when its balance is supposedly $3 trillion.

Nonsense. No Senior has to worry about receiving anything less than full payment through 2037. And 78% after that. But we'll fix it. We've made multiple adjustments over the years, just need another.

And it's been that way for some time. Strange the sudden fixation on Social Security when none is needed.

The only reason to worry about making tomorrows payment was the ridiculous kabuki of "oh noes, don't borrow for the cash flow!"

Fortunately for this country, Joey's "ostriches" had alot more than a pea-brain, and prevailed.

When we need money, we sell some of those Treasuries off. You realize that's how Social Security earns additional interest money while sitting there, right? We will not put that money into a dangerous, volitile stock market market. It's against the law to risk it that way (good thing, as it would have lost 1/3 of it's value in the past decade!) It's safe in the safest bonds in the world.

And you do realize, that if Social Security were indeed "cash" in a lockbox, it would be immediately loaned to us in bonds to earn that interest, right? It really wouldn't - could not - remain "cash" sitting in a safe somewheres? Social Security monies by law have to earn interest?

I'm not saying it's right Congress raided it in the past, it was not. But it's certainly not a disaster or non-payment threat as you falsely imply.

The Fed government is sadly incapable of surviving all its giveaways w/o diverting 40% of tax money but it should certainly make an effort to start trying.

I agree. And getting our income back up to full-time is the first thing we should do. Trying to hang back and work at 70%, while spending at greater than 100% these past 10 years, obviously doesn't work.

We've been worse off before, and been able to financially do just fine. We'll do it again - if adults who can do math prevail. It's easy: 14% GDP income, 25% GDP spending: raise the first, lower the second, make them both about 20%

I think it's prudent in the future to start funding SS with cash, yes. But remember that we do not have any trouble cashing in our bonds and paying ourselves back at all, and don't anticipate a problem for over 25 years.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

When we need money, we sell some of those Treasuries off. You realize that's how Social Security earns additional interest money while sitting there, right? We will not put that money into a dangerous, volitile stock market market. It's against the law to risk it that way (good thing, as it would have lost 1/3 of it's value in the past decade!) It's safe in the safest bonds in the world.
.

If the SS fund held actual treasury bills they would have easily been able to sell them on the market and send checks out. Sadly they don't but rather have Treasury credits. That's my point.

Wish we could all pay our ss tax in credits but the government only takes cash. Also wish the SS fund received the same interest rate the IRS charges a late tax payer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

If the SS fund held actual treasury bills they would have easily been able to sell them on the market and send checks out. Sadly they don't but rather have Treasury credits. That's my point.

Pssst ... it's okay, because we're the ones that would hand ourselves a Treasury Bill to sell ... it doesn't have to be a literal hard copy in a safe somewhere. The Treasury can sell a T-bill and credit the appropriate accounts

Also wish the SS fund received the same interest rate the IRS charges a late tax payer.

I wish I had a golden pony that snorted nickles :-)

[Antitrust32]

78% in 2038 MAY be enough to cover an electric bill. maybe.

In 2038, I'll still be decades away from being able to recieve my electric bill payment. I'm scared to think of what the fund will look like in 2050 when it will be my time to collect.

but hey, who cares about the future. SPEND NOW!!!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

78% in 2038 MAY be enough to cover an electric bill. maybe.

In 2038, I'll still be decades away from being able to recieve my electric bill payment. I'm scared to think of what the fund will look like in 2050 when it will be my time to collect.

but hey, who cares about the future. SPEND NOW!!!!

But we do care about the future. That's why the SS fund will have to be addressed, in the exact same manner it has been in the past. But it's no danger-emergency!

The Social Security fund isn't part of any budget deficit, other than we owe it 3.4 Trillion, which we can get in a couple years from expired tax cuts and cash in readily over a few years. It doesn't contribute to the deficit, it doesn't contribute to long-term debt other than mentioned.

Who tells you guys this stuff? Rush? Hannity? Breitbart? RedState? Geesh, check the sources <g>

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pssst ... it's okay, because we're the ones that would hand ourselves a Treasury Bill to sell ... it doesn't have to be a literal hard copy in a safe somewhere. The Treasury can sell a T-bill and credit the appropriate accounts :-)

That's all and fine but when the treasury has 70 billion on hand while owing $3.6 trillion it's gotten out of hand. Tell you what offer $3.6 trillion in t-bills tomorrow and see how fast you can't sell them. Ponzi's been caught! Those $3.6 trillion dollars are long gone! Unless new tax money is paid in there is no money to pay out! We got ripped off for $3.6 trillion and generations to come will suffer because of it. We can at least stop the madness and lock up SS funds in the future whether they be in actual issued t-bills or in some sort of other investment. Anything beats getting ripped off.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

That's all and fine but when the treasury has 70 billion on hand while owing $3.6 trillion it's gotten out of hand.

Where have you been the past 20 years?

Cash flow? We borrow, we sell, we work the books? You know, as the Treasury hasn't been permitted to borrow since we hit the debt ceiling limit in May? And has been "working it" while Congress was stupid? And that's why we only have a few billion on hand?

Tell you what offer $3.6 trillion in t-bills tomorrow and see how fast you can't sell them.

Really? You don't watch interest rates, huh?

Ponzi's been caught! Those $3.6 trillion dollars are long gone! Unless new tax money is paid in there is no money to pay out! We got ripped off for $3.6 trillion and generations to come will suffer because of it.

OHMYGAWD, OH ... wait, no, we have not been "ripped off"

We can at least stop the madness and lock up SS funds in the future whether they be in actual issued t-bills or in some sort of other investment.

That's what we do now Which investments are covered by law, always have been.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social Security is fully funded for disbursements through 2037, and at 78% after that for years, if we do nothing to it. A minor tweek, such as raising the cap to $150,00 or $200,000, would fund it virtually forever at current benefit levels. And yes, SS is safely kept in US Treasury bonds. We have no anticipated trouble paying ourselves back as we need it. SS has never, ever missed a payment, and there is no indication or reason it ever should.

As long as the Tea Party never gains a majority in Congress, the full faith and credit of the US should be okay.

I''d guess that most of the people on this list, less than 30 years of age, have very minimal to no self-funded retirement accounts. Social security is a fallback insurance - not intended to be a primary retirement. It's meant only to keep the elderly from starving and being on the street poor, as used to happen.

Medicare needs help, yes. And state Medicaid contributions are terrible (they talked about that when they passed the ACA, what stress the requirements would put on the states, which is why the feds will step in and help alot) But not SS, that is most certainly not in any panic state.

medicare is ss. it's all funded by your social security payments. payments to ss need to increase, the number of credits required to be 'fully vested' need to increase. the program needs an overhaul. amounts sent in, age to collect, etc. and the money needs to remain in ss from now on, for only the programs it's intended to pay for. iou's don't mean squat, and pay for nothing. of course, when the govt borrows from itself, it doesn't have to pay interest, include it in the debt, etc
medicaid is fed and state funded. and it's about to break the states. those requirements from the ACA grow dramatically over the next few years. the states are filing suits because it's a tax passed on to them by the fed, who is trying to trumpet medicare savings as a great thing...it's just passing the buck. well, the bill in this case.
as for ss and the 'little tweak', that hot potato keeps getting passed along, no one wants to touch it. but you cling to that fiction that it's nothing to worry about- it's a huge worry. defense is over 20% of the federal budget, it's a huge expense. but entitlements are higher than that budget, and growing by the day. by waiting to do what's needed, the problem only grows.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

medicare is ss. it's all funded by your social security payments. payments to ss need to increase, the number of credits required to be 'fully vested' need to increase. the program needs an overhaul.

Social security monies and Medicare monies are kept separately, though, each is an independent percentage of FICA.

Again, the only change I would make is raising the cap to $250,000. No need to raise the age if that is done. No "overhaul" needed, just a tweak. People in America work longer than other countries to get to retirement already.

It's really physically hard for alot of 67 year old people to work, even if they do have an office job. If they are laid off after 55, good luck ever finding a job again. Why make elder poverty worse? Let's make it better, let's make less of it.

Again, I see no need to change the qualification credits. Although everyone is "fully vested" after 10 years of nonstop work, they are not all paid the same at retirement, because that depends upon your individual income.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social security monies and Medicare monies are kept separately, though, each is an independent percentage of FICA.

Again, the only change I would make is raising the cap to $250,000. No need to raise the age if that is done. No "overhaul" needed, just a tweak. People in America work longer than other countries to get to retirement already.

Bullshiat!

The cash, collected in the form of taxes, is deposited into the general fund and then 'credits' (future tax promises) are issued to each's account. The 'cash' meanwhile goes to everything from the bridge to no where to Obama flying home for his b-day bash.

If we only had the monies kept seperately we'd have only 30% of the debt we do now!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Bullshiat!

The cash, collected in the form of taxes, is deposited into the general fund and then 'credits' (future tax promises) are issued to each's account. The 'cash' meanwhile goes to everything from the bridge to no where to Obama flying home for his b-day bash.

If we only had the monies kept seperately we'd have only 30% of the debt we do now!

That doesn't even make any remotely logical sense.

Oh, wait! I think you thought I meant that the funds are physically kept separately. LOL - no. That's not what I am saying when I say the "funds are kept separately". I am talking about normal accounting procedures. Not your scenario of a man cashing your check, and putting money into little separate piles .... Seriously? That's how you think? You think that people (employers) should be required to write a separate check for each separate Med and SS account? LOL!

Dell, I want you to do something really brave: go read Wikipedia, regarding "Social Security - United States"

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

That doesn't even make any remotely logical sense.

Oh, wait! I think you thought I meant that the funds are physically kept separately. LOL - no. That's not what I am saying when I say the "funds are kept separately". I am talking about normal accounting procedures. Not your scenario of a man cashing your check, and putting money into little separate piles .... Seriously? That's how you think? You think that people (employers) should be required to write a separate check for each separate Med and SS account? LOL!

Dell, I want you to do something really brave: go read Wikipedia, regarding "Social Security - United States"

and you go take a reality pilll.

If the SS tax was actually invested in the same form it came in, CASH (even in actual T-bills) the roughly 40% of taxes paid in 'cash' taken in each year wouldn't be available to 'waste' on political pork whether it be reps or dems.

It's that simple!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

and you go take a reality pilll.

If the SS tax was actually invested in the same form it came in, CASH (even in actual T-bills) the roughly 40% of taxes paid in 'cash' taken in each year wouldn't be available to 'waste' on political pork whether it be reps or dems.

It's that simple!

You can't compare apples and oranges. You can't simply ignore certain facts. You are making no sense whatsoever.

I think the Fed should not be paying for anything other than SS benifits with SS taxes. Whether the money be borrowed or not. Anything wrong with that?

I guess you are just completely not paying any attention at all to what I've written about that. I give up.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You think that people (employers) should be required to write a separate check for each separate Med and SS account? LOL!"

absolutely not.

I think the Fed should not be paying for anything other than SS benifits with SS taxes. Whether the money be borrowed or not. Anything wrong with that?

BTW I like the fact property taxes (though far too high) are itemized to show exactly who's receiving money and how much. I'd like SS to do the same and simply list who and how much is being distributed via the FICA with holding.

Or simply allow those contributing to opt for (paid for in full T-bills) or credits. Then we could seperate out the suckers!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Social security monies and Medicare monies are kept separately, though, each is an independent percentage of FICA.

Again, the only change I would make is raising the cap to $250,000. No need to raise the age if that is done. No "overhaul" needed, just a tweak. People in America work longer than other countries to get to retirement already.

It's really physically hard for alot of 67 year old people to work, even if they do have an office job. If they are laid off after 55, good luck ever finding a job again. Why make elder poverty worse? Let's make it better, let's make less of it.

Again, I see no need to change the qualification credits. Although everyone is "fully vested" after 10 years of nonstop work, they are not all paid the same at retirement, because that depends upon your individual income.

yes, i know benefits are dependant on one's income-but there is no reason someone should pay zero for medicare part A after only 10 years work...or get full credit for money put in. the requirements should be stiffer, because there are plenty of people who work the system-much like some people at the mill here who know exactly when to stop working for the year and go on fmla, so that they get that 'free money' when they file (earned income tax credits-where you pay next to nothing in, but get thousands back as a 'refund') the following spring.