Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
58. Uh, no, they're not. SS was set up as a pay-go program. Money to pay retirees doesn't come from
Thu May 31, 2012, 07:22 AM
May 2012

the TF, but from current tax receipts. It's surplus collections that are put into the TF, and before Reagan, it never contained more than the equivalent of a year's receipts, and often less.

Today it contains something like 5 years' worth.

The original social security legislation REQUIRED that all surplus collections be borrowed into the general fund.

To some extent, it's true that "we" are being taxed twice to provide SS (though many low-income workers pay minimal income taxes).

That's why building up a huge surplus in the TF is so stupid. As workers, we pay more than is needed to fund the program. The remainder is borrowed into the general fund, the super-rich are given tax breaks, then when it comes time to repay the gov't pleads poverty and tries to figure out ways to cut promised benefits or make us pay more.

Returning to the original pay-go design and avoiding all calls to collect even MORE SS surplus tax avoids that problem.

The top 10% pays the majority of income taxes. They also got the majority of the bush tax cuts. They will repay the majority of the SS RF borrowing -- but they don't want to.

And a lot of them didn't pay SS taxes in the first place, because they make their money off capital, not from wages.


Well, pretty much the whole damn country will be insolvent as long as the HOUSE annabanana May 2012 #1
And this is most likely what will happen to SS after its trust fund is gone. dkf May 2012 #2
Many will not be able to save anything for retirement. For many just surviving RKP5637 May 2012 #4
Well look at the denial that there is even a problem with SS. dkf May 2012 #6
At one time retirement was part of being employed and SS was some RKP5637 May 2012 #7
There isn't a problem with Social Security. Zalatix May 2012 #8
Well then no big deal right? I guess the insolvency of the disability fund is of no consequence? dkf May 2012 #10
If there is a thief robbing the bank the problem isn't with the bank, it's with the thief. Zalatix May 2012 #18
The "plutocrats" to whom you refer are the US Congress. Now what? nt Romulox May 2012 #24
Those aren't Plutocrats, those are minions doing the Plutocrats' bidding. Zalatix May 2012 #35
Plutocrat -- A person whose power derives from their wealth. Romulox May 2012 #36
As long as Nancy Pelosi keeps fighting the interests of Plutocrats, yes. Zalatix May 2012 #37
"keeps fighting"??? Her own interests? Do you have any specific examples of her ever doing this? Romulox May 2012 #38
Let's see..... I could waste all day citing examples or I could do cite this... Zalatix May 2012 #39
You said *against* her own interests, and yet her wealth has grown substantially while in office... Romulox May 2012 #40
Yes, and? You're just trying to make up some outrage now. Zalatix May 2012 #46
You need to define your terms. A person of great wealth in power, who grows that wealth while in Romulox May 2012 #47
Then you don't know what a Plutocrat is. Zalatix May 2012 #48
Those are definitions that YOU have crafted from whole cloth. Nancy is worth $35 million, 14 or so Romulox May 2012 #49
I've provided CITES to back up my opinion, and my definitions are 100% NOT made up. Zalatix May 2012 #50
You didn't "cite" anything. You regurgitated "the LIST". Worthless. nt Romulox May 2012 #65
The list is only WORTHLESS because it contradicts your delusions about Nancy Pelosi. Zalatix May 2012 #71
I'm done talking to you. Take it to meta, where we can complain to third parties!!! Romulox May 2012 #72
You're done because you have NO FACTS to back up your arguments. See ya! Zalatix May 2012 #74
What nonsense. The "99%" frame was constructed by OWS last Summer--it is not part of any classical Romulox May 2012 #66
So? The 99% have always been here, throughout history. And Nancy Pelosi fights for them. Zalatix May 2012 #73
How many things has she taken "off the table"? Mairead May 2012 #45
It's not up to me to show what she's "taken off the table". Why don't you show us? Zalatix May 2012 #51
It's up to you if you have integrity. Mairead May 2012 #52
You made an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. Zalatix May 2012 #53
You *must* be joking. Mairead May 2012 #56
You'll get absolutely nowhere with me with your Pelosi-bashing. Nowhere. Period. Dot. Stop. Zalatix May 2012 #63
And we are now in the "But she is OUR plutocrat!" zone. Zalatix, I hardly knew ye... nt Romulox May 2012 #67
And now you are lying about what I said. Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Plutocrat by any credible definition. Zalatix May 2012 #68
"You have yet to come up with any proof except "it's common knowledge"" Mairead May 2012 #77
What? No cites to back up your accusations against Pelosi? I'm shocked, I tells ya! Zalatix May 2012 #79
I have no intention of continuing Mairead May 2012 #80
And this argument will end with you showing that you have no facts to support your case. Zalatix May 2012 #81
I'm not sure what to make of this poster's new direction. I honestly don't believe it's sincere. nt Romulox May 2012 #64
I know what your direction is. It's in the direction of bashing Democrats who fight for the 99%. Zalatix May 2012 #69
LOL. Sure you do. Why not complain about this in meta? nt Romulox May 2012 #70
Yes, and when you do suggest it and I do it, you call for me to be banned. Zalatix May 2012 #76
This is priceless. *I* started a thread in meta complaining about *you*. nt Romulox May 2012 #82
You intentionally mis-represent what a Plutocrat is AND you also intentionally mis-represent posts. Zalatix May 2012 #83
It's silly because you are accusing me of doing what you yourself just did. "Projection" Romulox May 2012 #84
You're getting all confused and tangled up with your web there! Zalatix May 2012 #85
It was heartening to find some support in meta. I'm done with the strange, combative behavior. nt Romulox May 2012 #86
Republicans appreciate all this irrational Pelosi-bashing. Zalatix May 2012 #89
Nor do I. (nt) Mairead May 2012 #78
Oh but I am quite sure of your "direction" here. Zalatix Jun 2012 #90
not this again CreekDog May 2012 #75
You are ill informed about how social security works Harmony Blue May 2012 #9
Then again nothing to fix for social security disability. The article is a bunch of hooey. dkf May 2012 #13
You've only been given the correct information 1,000 or so times. girl gone mad May 2012 #30
Lol. Well SS, Medicare and the deficit will never need to be addressed right? dkf May 2012 #34
What would be your solution? Kingofalldems May 2012 #61
I believe you're wrong about that Mairead May 2012 #42
the trust fund is not the program, and the program isn't financed from the TF, i believe is what HiPointDem May 2012 #54
If indeed that's what was meant, it is indeed wrong Mairead May 2012 #57
Uh, no, they're not. SS was set up as a pay-go program. Money to pay retirees doesn't come from HiPointDem May 2012 #58
Thanks, then. Mairead May 2012 #59
Maybe this is a better one than you read HiPointDem May 2012 #60
That looks written by weasels too Mairead May 2012 #62
I agree. They were set up as a cushion for the unexpected, same as a cushion in one's HiPointDem May 2012 #87
Most people don't expect to be disabled loyalsister May 2012 #28
People need to talk to their representatives - now. freshwest May 2012 #3
I live in just about a 100% teabagger state. Our representatives could RKP5637 May 2012 #5
You don't by chance live in Kansas? KansDem May 2012 #11
Yep! n/t RKP5637 May 2012 #14
I live in a blue area and talk to my representatives and they do all they can. freshwest May 2012 #16
Thank you, freshwest, for the pep talk. Eventually it just gets RKP5637 May 2012 #31
There is no problem with social security Harmony Blue May 2012 #12
The Social Security Trustees disagree with you. former9thward May 2012 #15
Another misinformed poster Harmony Blue May 2012 #17
I am not posting my opinions. former9thward May 2012 #23
Look, you clearly don't understand Harmony Blue May 2012 #29
Don't bother with the condescending 'cutting of slack'. former9thward May 2012 #32
"The trustees are projecting what they think is most likely" Mairead May 2012 #44
Pro-austerity scare tactics. marmar May 2012 #19
Yup Harmony Blue May 2012 #20
Get used to it. Marr May 2012 #22
Mitt told us they can just borrow from their parents. closeupready May 2012 #21
Well then. let's go find Mitt's parents. RC May 2012 #25
Yep, this'll work well for me. My parents are now about 113! n/t RKP5637 May 2012 #33
Journalism FAIL. KamaAina May 2012 #26
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT INSOLVENT!!!!! forgive the yelling rustydog May 2012 #27
One of two legal definitions of "insolvency" is "not able to pay ones bills as they become due." Romulox May 2012 #41
Bernie Sanders has a solution LongTomH May 2012 #43
What a bullshit article. What they don't tell you is that the fix is very easy and has been done HiPointDem May 2012 #55
If true, there is another reason - the number of unemployed people who are under 62 and applying jwirr May 2012 #88
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Social Security Disabilit...»Reply #58