Social Security is running out of money? Seriously? Would you be broke if you had $2.8 trillion in the bank? Or are you somehow under the delusion that the United States is going to default on its debts? Tell that to the Chinese and all the others who hold trillions in U.S. Treasury Bonds. You know, those interest-bearing bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States? The U.S. is not going to default even if the National Debt were $100 trillion; that would make the costs of borrowing skyrocket.
Calling Social Security the biggest federal expense or a liability is a damned bald-faced lie. It has its own revenue stream and is off-budget. In case you don't know what that means, it is that Social Security is not part of the federal budget. By law. Changes in benefits do not affect by even one thin dime the federal budget or the National Debt. The only change is the date that the $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund zeroes out, at which point only 80% of benefits could be paid out for the next 75 years. Simple adjustments (which used to be routine) to the payroll tax or the salary cap would fully fund Social Security through the year 2093. Or don't you want to raise the salary cap to let the wealthy pay more payroll taxes than a minuscule percentage of their incomes of millions of dollars?
If you cut Social Security benefits today, there would be zero effects through 2034 except to the folks who rely on those benefits. Nada. Zilch, zip, zero, null point void. Saving Social Security by cutting benefits? That is a fucking con job by radical conservatives who are ideologically opposed to government-run programs, especially to Social Security. Can't have wildly successful government programs, 'cause that would put a damper on their anti-government anti-regulation anti-responsibility efforts.
The financial sector would love to get their hands on administrative fees (think 20% overhead instead of less than 2%) for all the Social Security retirement accounts, and they would like the $2.8 trillion Trust Fund to be in their pockets. Privatization. Profits. The almighty dollar. The free market, which is supposedly inherently moral (Ayn Rand is their God and Paul Ryan is their disciple). They have theirs, and they want ours, too.
Are you of the opinion that Congress somehow stole our retirements because the Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury Bonds? "Hey, Congress, pay back the money you stole from our Social Security!" Treasury Bonds are just the method that our government uses to finance the nation's debt (see Chinese buyers of Treasury Bonds above). And do you think that Social Security is a savings program rather than retirement insurance, and that we are somehow being screwed? Do you also believe that Social Security is currently running deficits?
Look up interest-bearing Treasury Bonds (which are what is in the Trust Fund); Social Security is still racking up surpluses. Politicians love to include those surpluses in their budget figures even if Social Security is not part of the federal budget. But what will happen when there are deficits, or more benefits being paid out than revenues? Are baby boomers screwed? Look up Social SecurityTrust Fund. Look up the meaning of trillions in assets. Look up why the Trust Fund was built up (hint: baby boomers). Those deficits were planned for.
But what about the $50 trillion in future liabilities? That figure is for the next 75 years, and that's why payroll taxes and salary caps need slight adjustments. Or should we run around like Chicken Little crying, "This guy is falling!" as radical conservatives try to get us to do.
Maybe the wealthy should have payroll taxes on all of their income, rather than just on $127,000 of their income, which amounts to about $14,000 (or $28,000 if they are self-employed) of their millions in income. The higher your income, the less of a percentage of that income goes to payroll taxes. And your income is not subject to payroll taxes if it is from capital gains, which is the increase in the value of your assets, or the money you make from stock dividends (from all those investments you can afford).
Social Security is not a savings account. It is retirement insurance. Part of it is also disability insurance. If you want to risk your own money in the stock market, go ahead. The Great Recession wiped out many people's savings. Bernie Madoff stole (made off with) billions of dollars of people's savings. Brokers would "invest" with Madoff and present their clients with Madoff's fabricated list of stocks and earnings that clients were supposedly holding, then took no responsibility when the Ponzi scheme collapsed.
Retirement accounts are stolen in other ways, too. Brokers can decimate accounts just by churning (buying and selling stocks) to earn commissions for themselves. Bookkeepers, accountants, financial advisors can and have stolen or lost client's money. Look up why Leonard Cohen had to go back to work in his 70's (hint: stolen retirement).
And what about all the poor workers who struggle to pay the bills and can only dream about putting money aside for retirement? Shall we let poverty rates for seniors rise back up from less than 10% to 50% as it had been before Social Security? Shall we force them to work until they die?
You think Social Security is the problem? You've been conned.
Calling Social Security the biggest federal expense or a liability is a damned bald-faced lie. It has its own revenue stream and is off-budget. In case you don't know what that means, it is that Social Security is not part of the federal budget. By law. Changes in benefits do not affect by even one thin dime the federal budget or the National Debt. The only change is the date that the $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund zeroes out, at which point only 80% of benefits could be paid out for the next 75 years. Simple adjustments (which used to be routine) to the payroll tax or the salary cap would fully fund Social Security through the year 2093. Or don't you want to raise the salary cap to let the wealthy pay more payroll taxes than a minuscule percentage of their incomes of millions of dollars?
If you cut Social Security benefits today, there would be zero effects through 2034 except to the folks who rely on those benefits. Nada. Zilch, zip, zero, null point void. Saving Social Security by cutting benefits? That is a fucking con job by radical conservatives who are ideologically opposed to government-run programs, especially to Social Security. Can't have wildly successful government programs, 'cause that would put a damper on their anti-government anti-regulation anti-responsibility efforts.
The financial sector would love to get their hands on administrative fees (think 20% overhead instead of less than 2%) for all the Social Security retirement accounts, and they would like the $2.8 trillion Trust Fund to be in their pockets. Privatization. Profits. The almighty dollar. The free market, which is supposedly inherently moral (Ayn Rand is their God and Paul Ryan is their disciple). They have theirs, and they want ours, too.
Are you of the opinion that Congress somehow stole our retirements because the Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury Bonds? "Hey, Congress, pay back the money you stole from our Social Security!" Treasury Bonds are just the method that our government uses to finance the nation's debt (see Chinese buyers of Treasury Bonds above). And do you think that Social Security is a savings program rather than retirement insurance, and that we are somehow being screwed? Do you also believe that Social Security is currently running deficits?
Look up interest-bearing Treasury Bonds (which are what is in the Trust Fund); Social Security is still racking up surpluses. Politicians love to include those surpluses in their budget figures even if Social Security is not part of the federal budget. But what will happen when there are deficits, or more benefits being paid out than revenues? Are baby boomers screwed? Look up Social SecurityTrust Fund. Look up the meaning of trillions in assets. Look up why the Trust Fund was built up (hint: baby boomers). Those deficits were planned for.
But what about the $50 trillion in future liabilities? That figure is for the next 75 years, and that's why payroll taxes and salary caps need slight adjustments. Or should we run around like Chicken Little crying, "This guy is falling!" as radical conservatives try to get us to do.
Maybe the wealthy should have payroll taxes on all of their income, rather than just on $127,000 of their income, which amounts to about $14,000 (or $28,000 if they are self-employed) of their millions in income. The higher your income, the less of a percentage of that income goes to payroll taxes. And your income is not subject to payroll taxes if it is from capital gains, which is the increase in the value of your assets, or the money you make from stock dividends (from all those investments you can afford).
Social Security is not a savings account. It is retirement insurance. Part of it is also disability insurance. If you want to risk your own money in the stock market, go ahead. The Great Recession wiped out many people's savings. Bernie Madoff stole (made off with) billions of dollars of people's savings. Brokers would "invest" with Madoff and present their clients with Madoff's fabricated list of stocks and earnings that clients were supposedly holding, then took no responsibility when the Ponzi scheme collapsed.
Retirement accounts are stolen in other ways, too. Brokers can decimate accounts just by churning (buying and selling stocks) to earn commissions for themselves. Bookkeepers, accountants, financial advisors can and have stolen or lost client's money. Look up why Leonard Cohen had to go back to work in his 70's (hint: stolen retirement).
And what about all the poor workers who struggle to pay the bills and can only dream about putting money aside for retirement? Shall we let poverty rates for seniors rise back up from less than 10% to 50% as it had been before Social Security? Shall we force them to work until they die?
You think Social Security is the problem? You've been conned.
