1) The Greenspan Commission of 1983 raised the payroll tax contribution to something like 50% above then current distributions requirements. This was done to proactively factor in increases in real wages. Since real wages haven't increased since then (actually from sometime in the 70's, we have all been overpaying since 1983, assuming that Greenspan had his calculations right.
2) Since 1968, all payroll tax contributions have been dumped right into the general fund where they've gone to fund foreign wars, tax cuts for the rich, massive corporate welfare payments to pharmaceutical companies (Medicare Part D) and any number of other fraudulent uses of the money. We know where it's all gone and we know how to get it back. It's called Taxes.
3) Since retired Americans tend to spend, save or invest most of their savings domestically, why not consider payments to retirees as an exceptionally efficient economic stimulus deal. Younger people should be very much in support of maintaining SS benefits because they'll need the jobs created by retiree spending.
Larryof MN2:25PM June 16, 2009
Any time I see references to the 20XX date and the words SS Trust Fund in the same sentence, I postulate that that person probably is a member of the Flat Earth Society as well. When outgo exceeds income in 2016 ( maybe sooner...) the options for funding SS are exactly the same with or without the sacred "Trust Fund".
All Congress should watch that great American film classic "Dumb and Dumber" ( Jim Carrey). The last scene says it all as the 2 dolts are asked "What happened to the money in the suitcase...?" They open the suitcase and proudly proclaim "It's all here... we're good for it!!!.." as it is absent cash but stuffed full of IOU's...
As someone else aptly put it SS is safe as long as my grandchild's grandchild will pay the bill.....
Georgeof CA2:20PM June 16, 2009
I'd be more concerned about the bankrupting implications of health care (if unaddressed by reform with a new public plan option NOW), than I would be about whether I'm getting a "good deal" on Social Security.
Most young people have love (and financial)relationships with parents and grandparents who are still living. They don't "go broke" from paying into a government plan that returns their same money to their own "folks" (all of whom are individuals, by the way) in real time. They "go broke" from the trend of escalating health care costs that siphons money out of extended families altogether and into the coffers of CORPORATIONS.
This whole issue needs re-framing in order for the discussion to be intelligent. The "us versus them" thing is not between young folks and old folks. "Us versus them" is about how you keep net worth in the hands of individuals, period, as opposed to slipping away to incorporated entities.
Reader Comments
Back to article
Larry of MN 2:25PM June 16, 2009
George of CA 2:20PM June 16, 2009
Muser of NM 1:47PM June 16, 2009