[[Here’s the problem: You have been arguing from a false premise,]]
I’ve been arguing what many argue- and also trying to figure out, not knowing much about it myself, how we could go from a worker to non worker ratio of 16 to 1, and not have surplus still (even though we are now apparently down to a ratio of aprox 6-1)- It seems the money has been mismanaged (When thinking this through without knowing actual figures- and again, perhaps I’m wrong)- As it is evident that survivors (those who make it to retirement age, and don’t die before reaching it) are not paid in excess of 16 times what they put in- there should have been plenty of surplus.
From what I understand, (and again, I may be wrong, but many make this argument- and it seems a reasonable argument to make) while the surplus did go into a trust fund with government bonds- bonds are nothing more than iou’s, the actual money being spent on other things, and when it comes time to make good on the iou’s the government has to borrow money to pay the SS
Further, from what I understand, and again, I may be wrong, but, Had the money been invested, like it was supposed to be invested, in pre-existing marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, the money would actually still be there, and we would not have to be borrowing, paying interest on the borrowed money, and repeating the cycle over and over and over again driving us further into deficit in SS (not actual deficit, but to where we have to pay out less to each SS recipient)
[[But, you’ll have to start by dropping all the “illegal aliens are stealing Social Security” crap.]]
I won’t drop that because we are paying out between $400 billion and $600 billion every single year to illegals, they are destroying the economy, and the government ‘borrows’ the money from the trust fund in some cases to ‘fix the budget’
It all ties in whether you want to admit it or not- Clinton supposedly ‘borrowed’ over $700 billion from it to ‘fix’ the economy during his tenure- We keep going further and further into debt In this country, and a large reason we are doing so is special interest groups, government grants to crap programs, and illegals sucking this country dry, and if you have some evidence that NO SS money actually went ot ‘fixing’ these problems, then present it0- Calling me an ignorant liar, and pointing me to a government website isn’t proper evidence- no more so that someone questioning Hillary Clinton as a liar being told to go to her website to see that she says ‘nope, I am not a liar’ is evidence that she isn’t
[[Here’s the basic truth: Social Security is in trouble because it pays more “old age” benefits than it can afford. It’s been doing it for decades, despite an attempt to fix it back in the 80’s. The problem is demographic and economic:
Life expectancy is increasing.
Fertility rate is lower than expected (it’s currently less than replacement rate).
The economy isn’t growing as fast as expected.]]
That’s what I’ve been told, however, only until recently has the ratio dropped to 6-1- Before that it was approx. 16-1 which should have been plenty HAD the money been invested in pre-existing marketable U.S. Treasury bonds
What exactly is the ratio of worker to non worker for which we fall under’ sustainable levels?
[[It isn’t “illegal aliens”. If anything, they are actually HELPING Social Security, by paying taxes and never collecting benefits.]]
I will have to disagree with this- as nearly 70% of all immigrants are on some form of government handout/program, many to the tune of nearly $45,000 a year as they milk every program they can, and again We get back to illegals costing this country approx. $600 Billion a year, and the possibility that SS is being tapped to help offset the problem- if not as a direct result, but rather an indirect result in an attempt to ‘fix the economy’
[[So, stop whining about other stuff that is either untrue or irrelevant. They can’t solve the problem.]]
nobody is whining about anything- We’re simply asking questions which seem reasonable questions to ask since SS had surpluses all those years and still couldn’t manage- It only seems reasonable to question where the mismanagement happened- Sorry if you don’t like that
[[It comes down to what I posted earlier: in order to keep Social Security going in its current form, taxes must be increased, or benefits must be reduced, or a combination thereof. And because we (collectively) have put our head in the sand for the past two decades, the changes are going to be painful. The only question is how the pain will be distributed. And, the longer we wait, the more painful it will be.]]
nobody is questioning that something has to be done now- This whole discussion took place because I’ve echoed what many others, including congress people, and not just democrats ‘looking to scare people’ have made- You claim the money was never misappropriated and mismanaged - that’s it- many think otherwise, and it seems for good reason- you disagree- that’s fine- but you don’t have to point to a government website, and declare anyone who doesn’t buy it completely as an ignorant liar- we should be able to discuss the issue in a civil manner without resorting to playground insults- that does nothing to strengthen your argument- and only shows weakness- but do as you l ike
It's called demographics. When people don't have a bunch of kids, and live longer, the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries goes down. There's no conspiracy.
From what I understand, (and again, I may be wrong, but many make this argument- and it seems a reasonable argument to make) while the surplus did go into a trust fund with government bonds- bonds are nothing more than iou’s, the actual money being spent on other things, and when it comes time to make good on the iou’s the government has to borrow money to pay the SS
That's essentially correct, as long as there is an annual deficit. What is happening is the government sells new US Treasury bonds to individual investors and banks. There's no surprise there.
Further, from what I understand, and again, I may be wrong, but, Had the money been invested, like it was supposed to be invested, in pre-existing marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, the money would actually still be there, and we would not have to be borrowing, paying interest on the borrowed money, and repeating the cycle over and over and over again driving us further into deficit in SS (not actual deficit, but to where we have to pay out less to each SS recipient)
No, that's not true. Per the link that knarf posted: the SSA has the option of buying marketable and non-marketable special obligation bonds. They've done both, but since 1980, they have been buying non-marketable bonds. But, the non-marketable bonds dividend rate is tied to the US Treasury Bond Rate. You can look at the annual report and do the calculation: the Trust fund earned 3.55% last year, consistent with US Treasury Bonds.
I won’t drop that because we are paying out between $400 billion and $600 billion every single year to illegals, they are destroying the economy, and the government ‘borrows’ the money from the trust fund in some cases to ‘fix the budget’
Look, this is the last time. What the government does with the money it borrows from Social Security is irrelevant. As long as it pays it back when Social Security needs it, and pays a market dividend rate, Social Security financing is secure.
Again, this is your last chance. You want to discuss this civilly, drop the conspiracy crap. You are wrong, it's a lie, and whoever told it to you did it to get you agitated. And it's working.
[rest of conspiracy crap ignored]
What exactly is the ratio of worker to non worker for which we fall under’ sustainable levels?
It all depends on how much you are willing to tax the workers, and how much you want to pay in benefits. Read on.
nobody is whining about anything- We’re simply asking questions which seem reasonable questions to ask since SS had surpluses all those years and still couldn’t manage- It only seems reasonable to question where the mismanagement happened- Sorry if you don’t like that
If you want to ask questions about why, that's fine. But, spare me the complaining about stuff that didn't happen, or stuff that is irrelevant. I'll answer your question, but I'm not going to start with your false premise.
So, if you want to know what happened -- this is it:
Here's where we stand: There is about $2.7T in the trust fund. But, Social Security pays about $859B in benefits, every year. That's only enough for less than 3 years in benefits. The surplus over the past few decades wasn't that large, because most of the payroll taxes collected went to the beneficiaries. And ultimately, that's your answer.
I read this repeated meme that "Congress stole SS". So, let's go with that for a moment -- pretend that Congress "stole" SS: who did they "steal" it for?
The answer: Social Security recipients. In other words, the exact people for whom the benefits were intended.
In the 70's, Congress decided that Social Security recipients needed more money. They increased the benefits significantly, AND added a COLA every year. Why did they do it? Simple: to buy votes. If you think they had altruistic motives, you don't know many Congressmen.
Despite attempts to raise taxes to pay for it, and accelerate that increase in the 80's, the demographic and economic assumptions were too optimistic. They raised benefits too high, and/or didn't raise taxes enough.
So, Social Security has been paying more benefits than it could afford for at least the past 40 years. And who got the extra money? Again:
Past, Present, and Future Social Security recipients.
You aren't going to like this, but I'll make this as simple as possible: if you are collecting Social Security, go look at your last check or direct deposit. If you haven't started collecting benefits, look at your last Social Security statement or online at SSA.gov, and determine what you are being promised.
Take that amount, and multiply it by 16.4%. If the amount is $1000, 16.4% is $164.
That amount is why Social Security is in trouble.
It's being paid to you now or in the future and Social Security can't afford it, in the long run. It's not your fault you are receiving it, other than if you voted for someone that gave it to you. Congress didn't give it to "someone else": they gave it to your parents and grandparents, and are promising to give it to you.
If you aren't willing to give up all or some of that extra benefit right now, you are contributing to the financial problems with Social Security. Because, the only way you can continue receiving that extra amount is to raise taxes on your children and grandchildren by 21.1% to 15.02%, combined.
If the changes aren't made this year, then the reduction to benefits or the increase in taxes will have to be bigger next year. And it will get worse every year until about 2034, when the SSA will have no choice but to reduce benefits by about 21%.
If you don't like the truth, please spare me the outrage. You don't have anyone else to blame, other than previous generations that didn't have enough children to keep this inter-generational income transfer going.