Posted on 10/14/2015 8:23:38 AM PDT by Fhios
(CNN) Mitch McConnell privately wants the White House to pay this price to enact a major budget deal: Significant changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and funding the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Sorry, I mis-read the graph. The proposal you cited actually makes the situation worse.
It's more obvious if you look at the summary table on the page:
| Summary Measures | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present Law [percent of payroll] |
Change from present law [percent of payroll] |
Shortfall Eliminated | |||
| Long-range actuarial balance |
Annual balance in 75th year |
Long-range actuarial balance |
Annual balance in 75th year |
Long-range actuarial balance |
Annual balance in 75th year |
| -2.88 | -4.90 | -0.24 | -0.27 | -8% | -5% |
The "shortfall eliminated" is negative.
[Is that a 7% to 10% benefit cut?”]
I should have addressed this earlier, and I would have caught how it actually changed the actuarial balance.
This is actually a benefit increase. To understand why, you have to look at how PIA factors are computed, and how they are used. Changing from 90% to 93% increases the first amount in the formula:
In 2015, this change would increase benefits for almost everyone by $24.78/month. Only the people with average indexed monthly earnings less than $826 would get less.
I wish people would correct my grammar and spelling when quoting me. /s
I really hacked that sentence out.
Not true its an entitlement because you are entitled to it due to a lifetime of paying in. Its not a benefit. And it is mandated by law.
Yes, this is stupid. Mitch is sending a message.
That’s not the case.
I'm sorry, you can post it as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true.
Read my posting #25. Or you can go straight to the source:
Flemming V. Nestor 363 U.S. 603
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
This is straight from the ssa.gov website. If you want to read the ruling yourself, you can follow the link above.
And it is mandated by law.
A law that can be changed, without recourse. It's been changed several times, to both increase and reduce benefits.
Again, I hate to burst bubbles regarding this, but people deserve to know the truth. Anyone making an assertion to the contrary is either misinformed or self-deluded.
I never said the law could not be changed. Its been changed a few times. I said SS is called an entitlement because you are entitled to it. Its not welfare and it does not need to be “attacked”.
You call your US Congress critter and ask them why SS is called an entitlement and then get back to me. Obviously I already know the answer. :-)
You speak knowledgeably and authoritatively, nonetheless I’m not buying it. Blame my ignorance on the matter.
The money doesn’t exist. It’s spent and has become US debt of uncertain priority. The interest accrued is imaginary. It’s just more debt. Had it been invested at the start and wasn’t used outside of its scope it wouldn’t be insolvent.
That’s what I believe, that’s what many believe and complex multi-paragraph explanations are simply not going to be convincing enough.
No, you said it was called an entitlement "because you are entitled to it due to a lifetime of paying in".
It's in your immediate prior prior posting, and I can provide a link to it if you don't remember.
That's not true, and I've provided you plenty of evidence if you would take the time to read it.
You can't keep moving the goal posts: if want to change your position, admit you were wrong and restate your new position, and we can discuss that.
At least you admit your ignorance. But, if you aren't willing to learn, we have nothing further to discuss.
Have a nice day.
I thought you were smart enough to remember. And it is an entitlement due to a lifetime of mandatory pay in through payroll deduction. Like I said you go ask your elected representative why SS is called an entitlement and he will tell you the same thing I’m telling you.
Again, that is not true. And your refusal to accept is is one of the biggest reasons Social Security is in trouble.
It is an entitlement because Congress passed a law saying that you would get benefits once you became eligible. That's it. Congress can pass a law saying you are no longer eligible, and there's nothing you can do. The only thing stopping them is the political fallout.
As the cited Supreme Court case says: they eliminated benefits for someone that was already collecting them. He sued, and he lost. In the original law, Congress reserved that power to themselves.
The law collects taxes from the currently working generation(s), and pays them to eligible retirees. The taxes collected from you are long gone -- paid to your parents and grandparents. There is no money collected on your behalf. All you have is the promise that taxes will be collected from future generations and distributed to you. I probably don't need to remind you that Congress only keeps their promises as long as it is politically expedient to do so.
And, it's hardly a "lifetime". Social Security will pay benefits based on 40 quarters of coverage: meaning that you only have to pay payroll taxes for a total of 10 years, but not all at the same time.
You do realize that your SS taxes are long gone? They were paid to your parents and grandparents (or perhaps to someone else). Your SS benefits will come from SS taxes paid by your kids and grandkids -- or someone else's, if you don't have any.
The Trust Fund is simply the excess taxes that were paid, and weren't needed immediately. Now, taxes are less than expenses, so the Trust Fund is being withdrawn slowly. Withdrawals will accelerate, until it's gone around 2033.
Why should you care? By law, Social Security benefits MUST be reduced to the level that can be sustained by the taxes being collected. At the moment, that's estimated to be about a 23% reduction.
So, this is the stark choice for everyone: address the problem now, impose some pain on everyone, or wait until 2033 and find your monthly check reduced by 23%.
I wish people would correct my grammar and spelling when quoting me. /s
Since almost everyone uses Auto Spell Check we can type one thing and the computer obligingly makes up its own mind what we typed. I have learned to ignore it.
As we get older we manage to cope with all kinds of things that don't measure up.
Do you happen to know when the next trustee reports come out?
I’m interested to see what the effect of the new payouts to perverts will be upon the trust. Without fraud it shouldn’t make much difference but I expect a whole lot of fraud.
Bingo ! Thank you !
Having paid into it specifically for 48 years myself, if Bitch McConnell tries to steal it to pay for illegal f’n aliens and ‘Rat giveaway programs I won’t take it lightly.
I agree, this is why the GOP is the stupid party.
Something has to be done as soon, but now isn't the time -- because Obama will simply demagogue the GOP until they cave. And then no one will touch it after the election.
The real problem is displayed repeatedly in this thread: most people simply don't want to understand why Social Security is in a crisis. All they want to do is repeat memes like:
Did that get anyone's attention? I didn't make that up: that's what the Social Security Administration has been saying for at least a decade, if you had been paying attention. The percentage and the year have been getting slowly worse.
The reason why: when the Trust Fund is exhausted, Social Security must reduce benefits to a level that can be sustained by the incoming revenue. They don't have a choice. They can't borrow money.
There's no money to be put back. It wasn't stolen: it was paid to earlier generations, at a rate that can't be sustained. You can thank Congress for that. And when Social Security was supposedly saved in the 80's, the demographic and economic assumptions turned out to be hopelessly optimistic. It actually turns out that the PESSIMISTIC assumptions were optimistic.
This is what the GOP has to explain, in as simple terms as possible, and repeat it loudly and often. The lamestream media won't cover it - they have to take it to the alternative and social media.
There will still be people that won't accept the truth. You can see examples of them on this thread. But for the sake of everyone, it has to be said, and action taken before it is too late.
Oh, for God's sake. It's another one.
Read post 25. No one has, or is stealing anything. It was given away to your parents and grandparents.
The SSA trustee's report usually comes out in June or July each year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.