The SS trust fund is composed of Treasury instruments available only to the trust fund. IOW, it is government money, invested in government “instruments,” guaranteed by the government. That ain’t “in the market.” The return is no longer subject to any piece that is a marketable security. IOW, the return is whatever the government wants it to be (guess who funds any shortfalls?). What a competitive market that is!
Who the hell was arguing that? SS is an “oasis” only to the extent that the government deems it so by fiat, which is subject to its imminent collapse.
Oh, I design credit default swaps for AIG. How about you?
No, you need to not paint entire groups with a broad brush, you stupid beaver.
How about these ‘general statements’?
Black people are generally criminals.
Mexican people are generally lazy.
Do you not see how those can be offensive? So when you say (or imply) ‘Civil Servants are generally lazy and do low-quality work because their jobs are secure’ you are displaying your ignorance.
It does look like you conceded every point we were discussing apart from one.
It’s not government money, it’s the SS fund, it’s government money in the same way that other insurance company capital reserves are government money. And the money is indeed “in the market.” If you moved two trillion dollars from the US bond market to another market that would have very real consequences on bond prices and yields and also on the value of whatever market you moved the money to. And of course the government doesn’t set the market rate, bond investors do. What was it you were saying about somebody not seeming to have a basic idea about how markets work?
SS isn’t going to collapse ever, after all you agreed with me yesterday that it was well-funded. Now you appear to have changed your mind on that one, so you’re back to being wrong again. If the worst-case scenario happens it may only be able to pay 3/4 of benefits in 2038 but due to price-indexing of benefits that will still give 2038 retirees a greater standard of living than today’s benefit levels do. And it may be able to pay full benefits without another dollar increase in taxes if economic growth is good between then and now.
Really, what is it you do? What financial service do you provide? Do you work for a bond-trading firm perhaps?
Social Security has a two trillion dollar fund. It’s difficult to describe having two trillion in the bank as “in the red.” Medicare is solvent too, it may become insolvent in about a decade according to its trustees.
And you keep ignoring my answer. SS is an insurance scheme and like all other insurance schemes takes in premiums and pays out claims while keeping a fractional reserve. If SS is a Ponzi scheme, so is every other insurance scheme in the country. SS is actually far better funded with far higher quality reserves than any similar private scheme you can name.
That isn’t happening with SS.
And it isn’t a pension, it’s insurance. You can check any reputable source of SS information out there and they’ll all agree with me on that one.
Yes, there are thousands of different policies all with their owm terms and conditions. Medicare is dead simple by comparison.
sigh Sonova- I have to go BACK to work in two weeks so I can EARN the money to pay my insurance… it’s a plot! It’s evil! It’s … okay it’s adulthood, I’ll go now*
Holy shit - coming from someone who’s made 47,000 posts to a single thread, nearly every one of them displaying a level of understanding of civics/economics/everything else comparable to a chimp with Down Syndrome, this is rich.
What does that have to do with what I said? I don’t know of any pension plans that did or do that.
I guess except for the other threads that I have been posting in…
I suppose so, if that was what I said. But of course, it isn’t - what I said was Civil jobs are much more secure than private sector jobs, which tends to show in the quality of their work. You are the one that added “lazy” and “low-quality work” and insist that civil servants are just as good or better than the private sector based solely on your father.
Perhaps you’re thinking of someone else. I don’t believe we’ve agreed on a single thing in this thread.
That would be you. There is no marketable security currently in the trust fund. It is composed entirely of treasury “instruments” available ONLY to the SS trust fund, with rates guaranteed by the Treasury. There is no possibility of moving $2 trillion from this fund to affect any market, because there are no marketable securities in it. The rates are guaranteed and determined by formula. It is made up completely of U.S. government pseudo investments. Here, maybe this will help you:
You understand this is the actual government SS cite, okay? Before you start hand-waving these facts away again.
The same cite I provided, the government cite, acknowledges that the fund will be depleted, and that the debate is only when. It’s not an “if.” Your position, frankly, is silly. It is common knowledge and undisputed except by certain delusional types on message boards, that the major flaw of SS is that the payees have NOT paid in enough to the fund at the point the payouts begin to actually maintain the required payouts. Shortfalls, consequently, are made up from current contributions, exacerbating this same effect for future payouts. Your oasis of stability is a Ponzi scheme.
In the same paragraph you concede that benefits may need to be decreased (though your point is not clear–how does the standard of living increase with decreased benefits?). Duh! Yes, that’s the point. The program is collapsing. You’re agreeing with, well, undisputed fact. Congratulations.
SS’s own cite:
See? They were almost completely bankrupt, and were saved only by the tried and true method of getting the money elsewhere. Honestly, the point is beyond debate.
So when you said ‘Civil jobs are much more secure than private sector jobs, which tends to show in the quality of their work.’ did you intend to imply that civil servants do outstanding quality of work, because their jobs are secure? If that’s what you meant, then I apologise. But I don’t believe that’s what you meant. The clear implication, especially based on your previous posts disparaging other groups, is that civil servants’ jobs are secure; thus, they do not have to perform as well as private sector employees because they do not need to worry as much about being dismissed. Ergo, civil servants’ quality of work is poor compared to private sector workers’ work quality. You clearly implied that civil servants do poor quality work, because they do not have to worry as much about being fired.
And I did not say that civil servants are just as good or better than private sector workers, based solely on my father. Please read for comprehension. I said that your statement that ‘Civil jobs are much more secure than private sector jobs, which tends to show in the quality of their work’ is offensive because you are painting an entire group with a large brush, and gave my father as an example that your statement is untrue.
Christ in crotchless panties! You’re a shining example of the ignorance displayed by people who believe that the health bill contains a ‘death board’ requirement or that Obama was born in Kenya.
In other words, it is not the SSA that is poorly run. It is the people who receive the benefits that do not want to pay for the benefits they will receive (or are receiving now).
What point are you talking about? Your own cite states that the loan was a stopgap measure until legislation could be passed that strengthened the financing and that these loans were paid back *with interest *within 4 years. To top it off this happened 26 years ago! What possible bearing does this have on your arguement? Especially when the worse case senario presented in your cite uses the same timeframe that Dick is using (i.e. 30 years to insolvancy: 2009 + 30 = 2039). Your own cite puts SS solvancy at a range from 30-75 years and that is if we do nothing to change it financing.
How is any of this supporting your case of “imminent collapse”? Can you explain your reasoning more fully?
I’m happy to let our fellow forumers judge for themselves on that one.
It doesn’t matter that the securities aren’t marketable, it only matters that they exist. And because they exist they exert market forces on interest rates and bond prices as investors contemplate the extra two trillion of government debt and factor in the two trillion plus interest the government must raise in future taxes to pay them, thus they’re “in the market”. And the formula that sets their interest rate is derived from the prevailing interest rate at the time, which is of course set by the market, not by government. What do you mean “pseudo” investments? They’re guaranteed principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the US government. Is the US going to default on its debt? In what way are these bonds not the safest investment on the planet?
The SS fund won’t be depleted till 2038 according to the SS Trustees, but only under two of their assumptions in your cite. If you look at the third assumption, if we get the economic growth that we had in the nineties then the fund won’t need any extra funding. In 1990 the fund was due to run out in 2022 but because we got good economic growth in the nineties by 2000 the trust fund exhaustion date had moved back 11 years. So if we get good growth between now and 2038 the exhaustion date, according to the SS trustees and your cite, may not ever be seen. Contrary to your claims SS is currently taking in more than it pays out. That’s where the very undelusional two trillion surplus comes from! It’s due to pay out more than it takes in in a decade or so and that’s when the trust fund will start covering the shortfall. The fund was heading for insolvency in 1982 but payroll taxes were increased up and over the amount needed to restore long-term solvency so that a nice reserve fund, currently standing at over two trillion dollars, could be established.
And I pointed out that due to wage-indexing SS will pay higher real benefit levels at 75% of 2040 numbers than it does at 100% now. That’s because wages rise faster than prices and SS is indexed to wages, so by 2038 the benefits SS pays will have increased over and above current levels even if they only pay 75% of amount they should do then. And in my original post I made a glaring error, claiming benefits were price-indexed instead of wage-indexed. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up on that what with you being a financial services person and everything.
You really should tell us what it is you do so we can all further our knowledge of the part of the financial services industry you work in. Strange to make a claim like that then not have anything more to say.
Nuh-uh. As has already been explained to you many times, the money **YOU **payed into Social Security went to the people who were on it at the time. Now that your fat, lazy ass sits in front of the computer at home all day, **MY **taxes, and those of the other people currently paying them, pay for your manicures and toasted-baby sandwiches.
Your husband has a six-figure income. That makes you much better off than a lot of America.
I’m constantly amazed at how oblivious some people are to their own relative level of economic comfort and security.
I haven’t been following all of curlcoat’s posts in this thread, but if her husband does indeed make a six-figure income, then that puts her household income among the top 15.8% of all American households. And that’s for an income of exactly $100,000; if he earns more than that, the place on the ladder gets even higher.
The question, though, will probably come down to how one defines the word “rich.” When we use that term, we often tend to think of people for whom money is not even a problem, people who not only have high incomes, but also substantial assets. I have friends whose household income is over $100,000, who are comfortably off, and whose long-term financial security is pretty much ensured, but whom i still would not describe as rich, in the sense described above. They often have substantial mortgage payments (many of them live in places where real estate is expensive), and need to watch their money.
Still, every one of these people would recognize that they are very comfortable compared to the vast majority of the population. A sudden need for cash isn’t going to put them out on the street, they can afford to engage in substantial leisure activities and vacations, they have nice stuff in their homes, own two cars, etc., etc. They might not be ordering $400 bottles of wine with dinner, or driving 7-series BMWs, or maintaining a beach house, but they are vastly better of than the large majority of Americans. And that’s pretty rich, IMO.