Started By
Message

re: I see people on here say that the social security trust fund was “raided”. That’s false

Posted on 3/10/24 at 7:26 am to
Posted by countrytiger60
Larose
Member since Sep 2018
3634 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 7:26 am to
I promise you that I paid in more than what I got back so far!
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123921 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 7:31 am to
quote:

One way to solve the middle aged out there is to create a government backed IRA that is free from end user costs and cannot lose value and grows at minimum the rate of inflation.
Essentially an i-bond account. It will NEVER HAPPEN!

Why?

Because you assume the objective is helping the retiree. It isn't. It never was. The "Social Security" objective was, is, and will be to provide the government a cheap, reliable, borrowing source. Once you realize that, the rest becomes far more clear. The 'beneficiary' of "Social Security" is the Federal Government, not the retiree.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123921 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 7:47 am to
quote:

I promise you that I paid in more than what I got back so far!
But that is not the fair or functional comparator. The comparison is what an IRA with identical inputs over an identical time frame would look like. If you want to torture yourself, run those numbers.
Posted by Pu2kph0
Member since Oct 2022
1089 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 8:37 am to
quote:

Time to just end social security altogether


Fair enough. Just cut me a check for what I paid into the system and we call it even.
Posted by Deplorableinohio
Member since Dec 2018
5572 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 8:47 am to
Link?

Another eminently qualified expert?

GMAFB.
Posted by GusMcRae
Deep in the heart...
Member since Oct 2008
3238 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 8:54 am to
How did you get so stupid? Is it an act, or are you really this ignorant? How were you raised? Where did you go to school? Seriously… please answer. I want to know.
This post was edited on 3/10/24 at 8:56 am
Posted by SquatchDawg
Cohutta Wilderness
Member since Sep 2012
14201 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:00 am to
quote:

In less than ten years when the program’s reserves run out and retired people see a 23% benefit cut, many will scratch their heads like idiots and say “why are my benefits being cut?????”


It’s ridiculous too because we’ve seen this coming for decades. It’s a simple problem of funding for a future liability. Insurance companies do this annually.

Simple solution…eliminate the caps on annual income that’s taxed and phase SS benefits out for individuals that recognize a certain amount of annual income above a threshold. It really is kind of silly to pay SS to individuals that are pulling retirement/pensions/dividends in the high 6 figure range.

Let me say…I don’t LIKE either of these…but we’ve let this sit too long and there are no easy fixes.
This post was edited on 3/10/24 at 9:47 am
Posted by funnystuff
Member since Nov 2012
8330 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:02 am to
quote:

Why not put it all in treasury bonds so it can at least earn some return
Because the person paying the interest is the lender. Remember, at its core, a bond is nothing more than a certificate of debt.

Consider it this way. You give me $100. I promise to give you $110 back next year. One option for how I could do that is to put your money into stocks/bonds issued by someone else and to use the return to pay your $10 premium. That’s how investing is supposed to work.

Let’s say instead, I was in debt. This debt is from my other, predetermined spending habits and has absolutely nothing to do with you. Because I am in debt, I use your money to pay my debt down. Now, when next year comes around, in order to pay you back, I have to borrow more money from someone else to pay back your loan. You might well be getting an extra return on your money, but I’m still the one paying for it. And because I am still in debt, my “paying for it” requires borrowing that money from someone else. Which is all to say, because I am simply using your money to pay down my debt, it does not generate any additional return. You might perceive that you are receiving an extra return, but your money is not generating any of that return. It’s coming from more borrowing, with interest payments financed out of my pocket.

In that story, you are social security system and I am the government. Now tell me, do you feel confident continuing to loan me another $100 next year? Or does that maybe feel a little unsustainable as an investment model?
This post was edited on 3/10/24 at 9:12 am
Posted by LSUBALLER
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2013
16098 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:20 am to
Reading your Commie post make me want to see a shrink
Posted by Walkthedawg
Dawg Pound
Member since Oct 2012
11466 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:22 am to
quote:

auto downvote


Posted by FATBOY TIGER
Valhalla
Member since Jan 2016
8903 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:33 am to
quote:

Because you assume the objective is helping the retiree. It isn't. It never was. The "Social Security" objective was, is, and will be to provide the government a cheap, reliable, borrowing source. Once you realize that, the rest becomes far more clear. The 'beneficiary' of "Social Security" is the Federal Government, not the retiree.


Same book, same page.
Posted by funnystuff
Member since Nov 2012
8330 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:45 am to
You sure you want to share that with the class? That makes you sound soft as shite
Posted by OceanMan
Member since Mar 2010
20020 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 9:57 am to
quote:

When the lender and borrower are the same entity



Let’s just gloss over the complexities for the simple folk. Easier to create a narrative that way.

But let’s take this picture of words you posted at face value: it still means the government overtaxed its citizens. They took more than they needed, used the excess for general purposes, and borrowed to pay it back, creating a higher burden on the beneficiaries to pay back the debt.

If we get to disregard the distinction between government agencies (the borrowers/lenders), we should also disregard the distinction between those who pay it back and any purposes it was borrowed in the first place.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
39319 posts
Posted on 3/10/24 at 10:53 am to
quote:

By not having a mechanism to keep them separate it was raided.

Nope. “It” never existed, so it could not have been raided.
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram