HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Social Security is a Trus...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:12 AM

Social Security is a Trust Fund

and solvent until 2032.
It is not part of the deficit and should not be any part of the current discussion on our SHORT TERM debt!
Medicare is solvent until 2024 and longer if Obamacare is fully implemented.

It's the Tax Cuts stupid.

19 replies, 1516 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply Social Security is a Trust Fund (Original post)
edhopper Dec 2012 OP
dkf Dec 2012 #1
edhopper Dec 2012 #4
dkf Dec 2012 #7
part man all 86 Dec 2012 #16
lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #10
OKNancy Dec 2012 #17
Mass Dec 2012 #2
edhopper Dec 2012 #3
bemildred Dec 2012 #5
LiberalEsto Dec 2012 #6
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #8
riqster Dec 2012 #9
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #11
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #12
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #14
DallasNE Dec 2012 #15
FreeBC Dec 2012 #13
rockbluff botanist Dec 2012 #18
socialaidem Dec 2012 #19

Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:17 AM

1. Well Medicare part A is solvent but that only covers hospitals. Doctors and drugs have no fund

 

They have no payroll tax.

Part B and D are a gimme to the Public. You only pay 25% of the premium when you actually get the benefit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:28 AM

4. If Part D could negotiate prices

(a gimme to Big Pharm from Bush) it would be solvent.

Part B is part of the overall medical cost inflation. Obama already lowered it's cost and Obamacare will help in gernal.
None of the attacks on Medicare currently discussed will solve anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:10 AM

7. There is no solvency to part D. There is no fund. We borrow from China to pay for drugs and docs.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:44 AM

16. china owns 14% of the debt so you are lying once again, keep smoking BS dude cause you're full of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:10 AM

10. "Solvent" or no, your idea would certainly reduce the deficit. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:58 AM

17. So?

I've seen you spout this before and never responded. Here is the thing: So what?
Sometimes the government outlays more than it gets in FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. It's for the betterment of all of us.
If deficit reduction is so important ( and I'm not really sure it is at this point) then cuts can be made to other less worthwhile programs or expenses. When it comes to the health of our citizens, it's worth it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:18 AM

2. Yes, but all of them, not only the top rates on the top 2%

It is capital gains and the inheritance tax. It is raising the cap on Social Security.

The truth is that the upper middle class and the rich are getting a free ride on so many things that it is absolutely ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:25 AM

3. K&R

to all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:30 AM

5. +1. Nothing is more unseemly than whiny rich people.

There was some whiny Republican on yesterday explaining how $250K/year people were not really rich, like it's a real struggle to get by on that much. I think that's pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:02 AM

6. Problem is, you can't TRUST our elected officials

to keep their hands off it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 10:28 AM

8. I won't be old enough to retire by 2032

I don't disagree that it doesn't need to be part of the short term deficit talks, but it irks me when people say "oh, it's solvent until 2032 so we don't need to do anything." That says to me that people don't care whether the system is around for people my age as long as they get their benefits. How can you expect young people to stand with you and fight for maintaining Social Security if we know it won't be there for us?

This isn't directed just at you...it's a rant against the narrative in the progressive community in general. I care about protecting the social safety net, but the way people here and on Kos talk about it, sometimes it feels as if they don't care if the system is there for us as long as they get their benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:04 AM

9. I'll be old enough to retire in 2025

And it matters to me, since I will (the gods willing) still be collecting past 2032.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:10 AM

11. SS will still be around

In 2032 the youngest baby boomer will be 68 and the oldest will be 86. As the baby boomers die off, SS can return to being a pay-as-you-go entitlement just like it was for decades before politicians decided to "fix" it in the 80's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:16 AM

12. That may be true. But I'm not counting on it

Especially not with Republicans so determined to gut it.

I see this as a bigger problem in terms of public support for the system than means-testing would be. Most people under 50 don't feel confident that SS will be there for them, so they are shouldering the dual burden of paying into the system while saving privately as well. Until the government takes steps to reassure younger people that the system will be there for us it will get harder and harder to maintain support for it.

I am not saying cut people out entirely but I have no problem taxing a greater portion of the SS earnings of those who can easily afford it (although to be fair, they would need to change the tax code so that the deduction for medical expenses is more useful). I think there would actually be more public support for it if people didn't feel like their tax money was supporting Bill Gate's father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:22 AM

14. A very good point

Making SS solvent requires that today's 50 and 55 year olds, who btw only get full benefits at age 67, get their scheduled benefits. If you are 55 now, you are supposed to be getting full benefits at 67 in 2024. Knowing that the SS trust fund will run out 8 years later just makes the whole thing a sick joke.

If you are 50 now, you are scheduled to begin drawing SS benefits in 2029, and being told that your retirement benefit will be cut 20 or 25% in 2032 makes the whole thing an even sicker joke.

All of this ignores, of course, the ugly reality that SS is running a deficit now, because what's in the Trust Funds is a legal authority to borrow. If we keep running deficits on the current scale, then we will run out of borrowers long before we run out of the legal authority to borrow.

So in fact the numbers in the Trust Fund really mean far less than the fiscal balance for the US budget over the long haul. Focusing on the Trust Funds is an exercise in futility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:35 AM

15. That is the date it will no longer be able to pay 100%

After that date it will be able to pay 87%. The problem is that the longer we wait for a solution the tougher the solution will be to swallow and that plays into Republican hands. Still, there is no reason to link this to either the "cliff" or the debt ceiling. There is a solution, remove the cap on how much salary is subject to SS tax, but that could backfire as companies stop paying their executives a salary and instead pay them with company stock options that are sold as capital gains akin to what Mitt Romney currently gets. The solution there is to end that practice but who has the political guts to do that. The sole purpose of these "bonus" awards is to avoid taxes, allowing CEO's to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Even the Buffett Rule will not fully fix that problem -- not even close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 11:21 AM

13. K&R

 

keep saying it because they are going to keep lying about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:14 PM

18. Pay it back

The federal government owes trillions to the Social Security trust fund. It's time to pay it back. The republican's great god Reagan had people pay more beginning in the 80's so this debacle would not happen. PAY IT BACK and take the cap off. Why isn't this beginning voiced over and over again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Original post)

Tue Dec 11, 2012, 12:23 PM

19. Lift the cap!

Lifting the payroll tax cap will make Social Security solvent for decades to come. If lawmakers don't want to lift it all together, they can raise it to $250,000 which will still keep the program solvent for 4 decades. Quick fix!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread