- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If social security is doing so great why do we now need myRA?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:29 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
When there is excess, it is placed in the trust fund, when there is shortfall it comes out of the fund,
There is no trust fund. SS has been in the general budget for a long time. There is no 'lock box'. That was a lie. The money has been spent. It's a Ponzi Scheme.
2
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:31 pm to SpidermanTUba
Where can I find the balance of this trust fund?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:32 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:You should have read the link I provided.
When there is excess, it is placed in the trust fund, when there is shortfall it comes out of the fund, but for the most part Social Security is a pay as you go system and has always been.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:35 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
The money to pay their benefits comes mostly from current workers paying into the system.
Nope.
Yep.
In 2013 Social Security paid $812,259,000,000 in benefits.
Payroll tax contributions were $726,217,000,000.
Therefore, 89.4% of of the money used to pay benefits in 2013 came from tax contributions in 2013. I think 89.4% qualifies as "most"
LINK
Sorry you're wrong. You'd think with a name like "TaxingAuthority" you would have been right.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:37 pm to Zach
quote:
There is no trust fund. SS has been in the general budget for a long time. There is no 'lock box'. That was a lie. The money has been spent. It's a Ponzi Scheme.
Just shut up bro.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:40 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Yet you claim to be a PhD? That claim smells to high heaven.
Yep.
In 2013 Social Security paid $812,259,000,000 in benefits.
Payroll tax contributions were $726,217,000,000.
Therefore, 89.4% of of the money used to pay benefits in 2013 came from tax contributions in 2013. I think 89.4% qualifies as "most"
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:40 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You should have read the link I provided.
You should have read the post of mine you were replying to a little more carefully.
quote:
You're claim will not be correct until 2033 when the "trust fund" will start eating into principle balances to cover current expenses.
My claim never had anything to do with whether or not the trust fund is eating into principal balances now, in the past, or in the future. It is a mystery to me how you came to believe that. My claim was merely that most of the benefits currently paid are covered by current SS tax receipts - which I have amply shown to be a true statement (see my last post addressed to you, the second to last above). You appear to be as senile as Zach.
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:45 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Therefore, 89.4% of of the money used to pay benefits in 2013 came from tax contributions in 2013. I think 89.4% qualifies as "most"
Good grief you apparently want to be ignorant. First, try to understand NPV of liabilities, or what a trustfund ratio is. Next, read my first post where SSI trustees consider 2013 to be cash flow negative (even though less than 100% of the inflows pay ALL of the outflows). And then go have a gander at the tables at the end of the reports that gives payed in years vs. age groups by pay-in years to see that those in their 40s, 50s and 60s have paid in far more than they are expected to receive. If you even bothered... you'd understand that Social Security's solvency problem doesn't stem from lack of individual pay in. It stems from declining number of contributors. (Classic fatal flaw in any ponzi scheme).
Why do you think immigration "reform" enjoys such strong bi-partisan support from establishment politicians?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:45 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:47 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:I'm unsurprised you can't comprehend simple NPV.
My claim never had anything to do with whether or not the trust fund is eating into principal balances now, in the past, or in the future. It is a mystery to me how you came to believe that.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:51 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
Therefore, 89.4% of of the money used to pay benefits in 2013 came from tax contributions in 2013. I think 89.4% qualifies as "most"
Good grief you apparently want to be ignorant.
My statement is 100% true, and I have supported it with links to the data. You appear to not be phased by that fact. Its amazing.
quote:
First, try to understand NPV of liabilities, or what a trustfund ratio is. Next, read my first post where SSI trustees consider 2013 to be cash flow negative (even though less than 100% of the inflows pay ALL of the outflows). And then go have a gander at the tables at the end of the reports that gives payed in years vs. age groups by pay-in years to see that those in their 40s, 50s and 60s have paid in far more than they are expected to receive.
Awesome bro. I never said otherwise. Preach on!
quote:
If you even bothered... you'd understand that Social Security's solvency problem doesn't stem from lack of individual pay in. It stems from declining number of contributors. (Classic fatal flaw in any ponzi scheme).
Are you even talking to me? Is there some other SpidermanTUba in your head you are having a conversation with? You are countering claims I never made. Get back on your meds, OK?
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 3:54 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
My statement is 100% true. You appear to not be phased by that fact. Its amazing.
Sorry. You're too ignorant to argue with.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:00 pm to Zach
quote:
has been in the general budget for a long time
Whoa, whoa, Zach. What the hell is this 'budget' thing you mention?
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:01 pm to Taxing Authority
Pew Research agrees with my claim, as well.
LINK /
Though it remains to be seen whether or not you can actually comprehend the claim I am making, or will continue to babble on with a list of random facts you know hoping one of them will have anything to do with what I'm talking about.
quote:
Rather, the benefits received by today’s retirees are funded by the taxes paid by today’s workers;
LINK /
Though it remains to be seen whether or not you can actually comprehend the claim I am making, or will continue to babble on with a list of random facts you know hoping one of them will have anything to do with what I'm talking about.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:22 pm to SpidermanTUba
So I ask again. Where did all the money go current retirees paid in? Can I see an annual balance if the trust fund? Have the monies paid in been used for anything else?
This post was edited on 12/28/14 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 12/28/14 at 4:24 pm to ehidal1
quote:
Whoa, whoa, Zach. What the hell is this 'budget' thing you mention?
I am not Zach but it started back in the 1960s with LBJ. They started to raid SS to pay for the Vietnam War and it has not ceased.
The sad thing is that there is no SS 'trust fund'.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 5:00 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Yet you claim to be a PhD?
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 6:39 am
Posted on 12/28/14 at 5:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:I completely understand it. What you're claiming is that since income = payment there is no other money involved.
Though it remains to be seen whether or not you can actually comprehend the claim I am making,
That's the equivalent of having a mortgage on a rental property, and since the rent is equal to the mortgage... Concluding that the bank didn't provide any money for the purchase at closing.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 5:35 pm to Taxing Authority
SS is not a ponzi scheme. Conservatives think people will believe if they say it often enough.
Ponzi schemes promise returns on investments. SS is not an investment scheme. It's a transfer program where the taxes you pay now are transferred to people who collect the benefits. It has nothing to do with investing. It is dependent on more people paying into the program than collecting.
That problem is easily solved by means testing whereas Paris Hilton and Donald Trump should have enough money where they don't need social security and by increasing social security taxes on high income earners who likely won't miss a few hundred dollars a year in social security taxes.
Plus social security was never intended to be a retirement program. It is an anti-poverty program for the elderly. That's what it is and that's why it pays such meager benefits. It's only there to keep you out of poverty when you're older or disabled. That's why means testing is the way to go.
Ponzi schemes promise returns on investments. SS is not an investment scheme. It's a transfer program where the taxes you pay now are transferred to people who collect the benefits. It has nothing to do with investing. It is dependent on more people paying into the program than collecting.
That problem is easily solved by means testing whereas Paris Hilton and Donald Trump should have enough money where they don't need social security and by increasing social security taxes on high income earners who likely won't miss a few hundred dollars a year in social security taxes.
Plus social security was never intended to be a retirement program. It is an anti-poverty program for the elderly. That's what it is and that's why it pays such meager benefits. It's only there to keep you out of poverty when you're older or disabled. That's why means testing is the way to go.
Posted on 12/28/14 at 6:24 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News