Confused

The fix for S. S. is very basic and very easy , raise the income caps .
Why is it the more money you make the more % you keep ?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

To date, the size of the benefit was related to the size of the contribution - so if you raise the cap are you also going to raise the benefits? Or are you suggesting that the original concept be changed and the entire program be more clearly identified as but one more instrument of income redistribution? If so, why not stop the pretense and eliminate Social Security entirely and replace it with an age and means tested welfare program? It would, at least, be more honest.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Okay, I WILL simplify it: WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF MONEY AND ALL OF THE TAXATION IN THE WORLD WILL NOT SUSTAIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR IN FACT IT WILL REQUIRE THAT ALL PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT MUST CEASE TO EXIST TO SUPPORT IT. DOES THAT CLEAR IT UP?

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

This is from the Wall Street Journal this weekend:

Attached file:
(Download)

Confused

No , I am suggesting raising the income caps to account for loss of revenues from 7 million jobs being outsourced and increased numbers of retirees . The " program " is an employer matched savings account . Far from your claim of income redistribution .
The only pretense here is you thinking you can " more clearly " identify / redefine S.S. as welfare . It didn't work ... You need more than buzz words for this conversation .

jetson

If you are in business you pay all your SS

kegler299 Loc: Aurora, Il.

How do you think a company decides your salary? Might they just happen to include the SS match along with other things like retirement, healthcare and any other bennies an employee might receive.

jetson

The way we figure the amount of pay was.....every hour an employee worked, so many dollars would have to come in for that hour. An example, Take an employee working 40 hours at 10.00 per hour=$400.00, just to pay his wages. Then add his insurance premiums. Our part of his SS tax. Our part of his medicare, his Employment insurance (ESC) would cost, any misc. cost such as uniforms, tools ect. This could come out over 600.00 per week before any profit was added. Now you would have to figure overhead, such as elec. water, phone, fuel for heat, gas. for vehicles. It would require about a total sum of about 700.00 to 800.00 to keep each employed. If you have 10 employees making the same wages could cost you 8,000 dollars a week. or more to stay in business. This not include any rent or property tax and or property payments if you are buying.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

You are confused about what I stated. I'll try again to unconfuse you. Today's system involves paying to retirees as a function of what they paid in. Those who paid the most, at the cap, recieve the most. My question was simply that if you raise the cap, will you raise the benefit for those who pay above today's cap? My further point was that if you do not raise the benefit for those paying above the current cap, you turn they system more to redistribution. I hope this reduces your confusion

Artemis

Good Morning, what percentage of this "invested money" is coming back to the US or going foreign? Invested in themselves (yes) in us?

VladimirPee

That's what I thought until I read this at the SS website. When counting NON INTEREST income you are correct. Social Security is running a deficit. But with interest included it is still running a positive budget for the time being.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund asset reserves by the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual aggregate cash-flow deficits. Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow, but not by enough to prevent the ratio of reserves to one year’s projected cost (the combined trust fund ratio) from declining. (This ratio peaked in 2008, declined through 2012, and is expected to decline steadily in future years.) After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund asset reserves to the extent that program cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year’s Trustees Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate in 2011 and 2012 reduced payroll tax revenues by an estimated $222 billion in total



http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

Artemis

Feel you've muddy the waters a little here on your analogy. There are your business expenses first, such as your overhead expenses,that must be paid. Than the cost of each separate employee and who is essential is considered.

Confused

Well said . One does need to ask why the CAFR shows 11 trillion in interest and fees but yet they don't return the interest money to the S.S. from which they use as an investment . If your banker or broker stole all the interest you would find another banker or broker .

Confused

I don't need unconfusing or your dumb ass remarks . You don't pay out all you take in . Raises are a % . Yes people with higher earnings and deposits get a higher amount but it is still a % . Why does the government take the interest earned and only credit the fund with actual receipts ? Why , because they STEAL THE MONEY . Actual accounting practices would require you debit the account for the interest . We don't have accountants in politics , we have lawyers who write laws for the purpose of stealing the money from the people . The question you should be asking with the program approaching the break even point why would anyone cut the revenues and underfund it instead of raising the caps and keep up with the funding and continue to shovel trillions of dollars to the wealthy in the form of tax loopholes .

jetson

Read again. I said overhead expenses in post