Posted on 10/28/2015 3:35:55 PM PDT by taildragger
boy, i just figured out everything you said. now my head hurts lol.
so the SS taxes taken in every year is the trust fund and whatever is needed above that comes out of the treasury?
isn’t there going to be something like 2 workers for every person on SS at some point, compared to 20 at one time.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.
“If Congress did not want this scenario to develop, they shouldn’t have put those rules into place.”
Rules don’t matter. Congress is sovereign, and it can change the rules of the game whenever and however it wants. If it wants to send SS recipients $100 a month, and not a penny more, it can do so.
Next up on the chopping block will be federal retirement payments. Watch the bennies get cut 25%. Then another 25%. And another.
“Kill the disability frauds”
Now that is something to look into for sure.
“Defund illegal Alien welfare.”
That to.
Same except not self-employed I would go one step further and pay more tax to the people already in the program as long as the extra tax is phased out over time. There's no reason to continue this charade but people already stuck in it should be able to continue collecting.
So when all of those treasury notes come due were is the money coming from? Or in other words when it’s time for the government (US Treasury) to repay the government (SS trust fund) for its loan how does the government (US Treasury) get the money to repay the government (SS trust fund)?
Well, the answer is simple. Taxes. Your trust fund is a simple minded accounting fiction. Treasury notes are only safe to the extent that armed men will put you in prison if you fail to repay the debt by not paying your required taxes.
If you have a pension from Company F’s pension fund whose only asset is bonds issued by Company F how much pension do you get if F goes broke?
You realize that the “SS Trust Fund” is a fiction, similar to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, right?
Which is why they are trying to bring in new "citizens" by the boat load to keep the Ponzi scheme going. That's why illegal immigration will never be fixed.
Cool. Do eet.
How do you know what their definition of "wealthy" and "high-income" is? Maybe it's anyone making over $20,000 a year.
No, it's not a fiction -- any more than US Treasury Bonds are fiction. Otherwise, Social Security would already be cutting benefits 3 years ago, when they started cashing in the Trust Fund.
However, it's not what a lot of people think it is: "their contributions". It's only enough to make up the difference between payroll taxes and benefits for about the next 19 years.
Clearly anyone under 50 relying on SS is a fool... over 50 too?
They are already "due" -- Social Security started redeeming them a few years ago.
But, you almost answered your question:
Well, the answer is simple. Taxes.
If we were running a budget surplus, it would be "taxes". But, since we are still running a budget deficit -- in excess of the amount being redeemed by Social Security, it's effectively from new US Treasury Bonds being sold at auction, and purchased by individual and corporate investors.
No, the SS taxes taken in every year are used to pay benefits.
If there are more taxes received than benefits paid, the excess goes into the Trust Fund. It's invested in the equivalent of a long-term Treasury Bond, which means the federal government is effectively borrowing it.
If there are less taxes received than benefits paid, the shortage is withdrawn from the Trust Fund. That means the federal government has to pay it back, and that comes out of the general fund.
But, since the federal government is already running a deficit, what is really happening: the federal government is selling a new REAL US Treasury Bond to an investor, and then using that money to pay off their debt to Social Security.
and i would say the same for any 401(k). nothing is really yours if you have to pay rent on it.
They need the money for MoocherCare and IllegalCare.
Oops! I meant to say ObamaCare.
I've paid to the limit for the last 30 years. That's a maximum contribution. When I retire, I won't be working 55 to 70 hours a week. I will live off my 401k. The class warriors would insist on "means testing" what I can take back out from the maximum confiscation applied to my paycheck since I was about 30 years old. What comes out should be directly proportional to what went in. No more. No less. No redistribution of your wealth to those who didn't earn it, nor theft by you of other people's contributions.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge here. It is very helpful.
I started taking my retirement benefit at 64 because I had been laid off with almost no prospect of finding another job, and I didn’t want to start withdrawing from my tax-deferred accounts. As soon as she was eligible my wife started taking the spousal benefit and will delay taking her full benefit until age 70.
We just happened to find out about this by word of mouth but it was one of the smartest moves we’ve made. We recently hired a new financial planner and as he was going through our profile he noticed our SS situation. He remarked that he can always tell when someone has done serious planning when he sees the spousal benefit being taken.
I’ll take my chances. LOL
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.