Skip to main content

View Diary: No Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Absolutely (0+ / 0-)

    This is true. However, the existence of all of these T bills must and will equate to a tax increase on younger workers to cover the benefits of older ones.

    Without the trust fund, this wouldn't be an issue because contributions from younger workers would be enough in total to cover the older ones. As it is, boomers get a freebie: younger workers cover the trust fund obligations with no corresponding benefit.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 10:17:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's ridiculous (6+ / 0-)

      If there's a problem with treasury securities, it's a problem with treasury securities.  That's quite some logical jump to agree to that statement and then say that SS is to blame for a tax increase on younger workers and that boomers get a freebie.  The additional comment that younger workers cover the trust fund obligations with no corresponding benefit is pretty damn nuts.

      Whatever you're drinking this early in the day, make mine a double if I have to continue reading crap like this on a website dedicated to democratic principles.

      •  Re (0+ / 0-)
        The additional comment that younger workers cover the trust fund obligations with no corresponding benefit is pretty damn nuts.

        Really? So, let's understand this.

        The boomers are a big generation with lots of people.

        My generation is a smaller generation with less people.

        The trust fund redemption causes my generation to pay more than the "standard" social security that we would otherwise be responsible for. So I pay 9% instead of 6% (or whatever).

        Then, the trust fund depletes, and my generation gets the same benefit the boomers did. The only difference is that I paid 9% during their retirement, and I get an equivalent benefit of 6%. [Now, it might not be paid directly as SS taxes, but it could be as income taxes or as inflation, but it must be paid to keep the benefit level].

        The boomers get the same benefit that I eventually will, but I paid much more than they did to get the same benefit because there are more of them.

        Hence my comment.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 11:22:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Come on (4+ / 0-)

          You're going to add up all the taxes you pay, any imagined inflationary spending you might incur, and compare it to a flat FICA withholding for other generations?  And you're going to call any expenditure or tax you can shove into the bag your generation's contribution to SS?  

          Why, when I went to school, (walking 2 miles uphill both ways), we were taught a thing or two about logic and mathematics.

          If the boomers add up all THEIR inflationary spending, income taxes, and anything else (except the kitchen sink), then you may find that would be enough money to cover all the Boomer's retirements, your retirement, your childrens' retirements, and anything else we'd like to buy with that money.

          Assuming of course, that we don't engage in any more fruitless searches for non-existent WMDs or land wars in Asia and steal the money from SS to do it, as we've been doing for the past 40 years.

          •  SS benefits... (0+ / 0-)

            ...and Medicare for that matter and indeed all social programs can only be paid for out of present economic activity. The fact that people 'saved' money for it in the past is meaningless.

            The sheer number of the boomers and the relative extravagance of their benefits means that servicing them is going to take a larger chunk of the economy than servicing later generations will.

            That being said, I certainly would like to be cutting non value add spending like wars first.

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 01:12:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "can only" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              radical simplicity

              There are other possibilities for investing Social Security trust funds, such as high-equity first mortgages and corporate bonds.

            •  Another possibility (0+ / 0-)

              is government-protected priority mortgage investments in one's children's or relative's housing.

              Say Mr. Boomer might put up $20,000 so his child can buy a house. This might be paid back at the rate of 200 times the minimum hourly wage (200*$7.35=$1,470)annually from the time Mr. Boomer is declared disabled or reaches age 65 until he dies.

              Mr. Boomer might claim back on his 1040 up to a $1,000 year adjusted for inflation of the Social Security payments made or income tax due since he would be alternately providing for his old age.

              •  That is ridiculous. What happens if his kid (0+ / 0-)

                dies? Or says fuck you to his father and refuses to pay?  or sells the house — and pays off the remainder?

                Sorry, I wouldn't have given a dime to my father and many others would feel likewise. What about people who would sell their obligations?

                So if their father dies? or if he becomes disabled and needs funding early? Death of the old man could be very profitable to a kid. This could lead to an epidemic of patricide — or at least threats or blackmail.

                And what about all those people whose parent can't possibly afford to give their child $20k? Or people who have had 4 children or 6 or 8? do they have to come up with multiples of $20k? Who decides if just one gets it?

                The rich would do very well. They could even obligate lots more young people than they propagated. And gold diggers could warm up to multiple sugar daddies and then disappear.

                And why the hell should they get to deduct it? Then the amply endowed can buy up lots of tax credits.

                What about those having TWO parents or even with step parents? Who gets the payments you dream of?

                If it ain't broke don't fix it. And if it is cracked just mend it, don't end it.

                I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                by samddobermann on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:56:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  yes but it is because other (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bigrivergal, radical simplicity

              generations will have smaller numbers of people aging into SS.

              You have reached your level of incompetence, sparhawk.

              I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

              by samddobermann on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:27:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The younger generation is getting (0+ / 0-)

          repaired bridges, "food stamp" food, ~$100 billion/year in federal education funding, etc.

          The federal government could pay $3,000/year to 33 million old folks with that $100 billion/year in federal education funding.

          Class sizes are near record lows. In Florida, about 35% lower in grades 1-3, 20% lower in grades 4-8, and 15% lower in grades 9-12 than in the affluent upstate New York school districts of my youth.

        •  Your generation may be small (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dem Beans, Clues

          but the one right behind you is large, and you will be lucky to have them paying for you. So why would you worry about your own benefits?

          There are at least three generations working at any one time. Your generation by itself doesn't have to support anyone.

          We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

          by denise b on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 03:33:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Wrong. You are paying 6% NOW (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigrivergal

          and will continue. But there will be fewer people aging on when you come along so FICA taxes will accumulate beyond the needs of the post Boomers.

          The actuaries can be pretty damned good at working things out for even 75 years in advance. In the 30s they even allowed for a higher percentage living longer and reaching or passing 100 in the future taking into account the accelerating progress in medical knowledge and care.

          Pretty damned swift.

          The first person to get monthly payments on SS lived to be 100 and collected every month till then. There was NO COLA at first and no change for her or anyone until 1950. One of the original actuaries lived until 98 iirc, and was sharp as a tack to the very end. He died sometime in this last decade — and had been furious at the attempts to privatise it and Bush's demagoguery on the topic.

          I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

          by samddobermann on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 04:24:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And my sister died at 56 and got nothing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lostinamerica

            The straw man never dies.

            Obviously, you understand that the actuarial analysis works out quite well for everyone. The actuaries have had more than a few years of practice.

            The adjustment to handle the boomers was made a long time ago, btw.

            There's a mere $2.6 trillion in the funds right now. Just because you can't look at it, the invisible faith and trust of the United States of America makes it virtually valuable.

            So there. That explanation should clear things up.

            "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

            by GrumpyOldGeek on Fri Nov 04, 2011 at 08:41:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site