General Discussion

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)

38. It's Social Security's bank account

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 12:12 AM

Oct 2012

Particularly since the early 1980s, workers have paid more into Social Security than retirees have taken out in benefits. The surplus, currently at $2.6 trillion, is in the SS Trust Fund. By law, all of the Trust fund must be lent the the federal government. So $2.6 trillion of the US debt is owed to Social Security, and will be needed to pay back workers in full once they retire. The money will be paid back to the Trust Fund as it's needed to pay benefits.

The Bush tax cuts on the top 5% of taxpayers, plus the cost of the two recent wars, about equals $2.6 trillion. So that's what the Trust Fund was borrowed for. And if we reduce spending on benefits, then there won't be any need to pay it back and we can keep taxes low on the "job creators". That's what's going on, as far as I can tell.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should rich people receive Social Security benefits? [View all] panader0 Oct 2012 OP

When I was a kid, it was common for the wealthy not to take their SS proud2BlibKansan Oct 2012 #1

We need to drive home the point DonCoquixote Oct 2012 #2

Right brush Oct 2012 #19

They should receive benefits up to a point Generic Brad Oct 2012 #79

Why remove the cap? For what purpose? FogerRox Oct 2012 #82

an honest question handmade34 Oct 2012 #3

of course they should. unless you'd prefer they didn't pay in. in which case, kiss the whole thing HiPointDem Oct 2012 #4

But do they really pay in? panader0 Oct 2012 #9

If they had earned wages they paid in. DURHAM D Oct 2012 #31

no one pays in on capital income. everyone (with some exceptions) pays in on wage income. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #35

As long as they paid their taxes... MinM Oct 2012 #5

My right-wing, Democratic great-aunt FIVE YEARS Nevernose Oct 2012 #6

Yes. It's for everyone, no exceptions. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #7

+1000 n/t TDale313 Oct 2012 #13

+ 3225 Change has come Oct 2012 #24

Exactly Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #41

No, imo. elleng Oct 2012 #8

Can you explain the cap on SS contributions to me? panader0 Oct 2012 #10

Here: elleng Oct 2012 #14

Do you mean MissB Oct 2012 #16

Thanks, I get it now. panader0 Oct 2012 #18

Which public sector? abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #45

It does seem to vary by state. MissB Oct 2012 #54

foolish? not at all. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #36

Yes Foolish for people to become hysterical. elleng Oct 2012 #44

i've seen no one who's 'hysterical'. i've seen a lot of people who are concerned, angry, worried, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #49

Yes, because... TDale313 Oct 2012 #11

Bingo hollysmom Oct 2012 #20

Bingo, yup FogerRox Oct 2012 #76

Probably not in the end. hrmjustin Oct 2012 #12

If they paid their premiums, yes. Warpy Oct 2012 #15

same rules for everyone SmileyRose Oct 2012 #17

Yes. The fix is to raise the cap... WorseBeforeBetter Oct 2012 #21

Fix what? You think SS is broken? FogerRox Oct 2012 #77

No, I don't, and I get VERY NERVOUS when I hear a Democratic president... WorseBeforeBetter Oct 2012 #87

The trust funds gets the full 6.2% FogerRox Oct 2012 #93

.gov late at night...... LOL ok thats fair.. :~ ) FogerRox Oct 2012 #94

Absolutely. Why do you think we still have SS while so many "welfare" programs have been Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #22

Great explaination, you have a very good understanding of the issue. FogerRox Oct 2012 #78

If we don't let rich people take it... Lydia Leftcoast Oct 2012 #23

Before the age of full benefits, SS is income means tested. Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #25

What part of a rich person's income pays into the system? panader0 Oct 2012 #28

All people who get paid, pay into SS. Even if they are rich. Honeycombe8 Oct 2012 #29

social security taxes are only taken from wage income. not from investment, iras, or any capital HiPointDem Oct 2012 #37

People who have had zero wage income and no spouse with wage income pnwmom Oct 2012 #62

yes, and they're irrelevant to any discussion of social security. they didn't pay in and they HiPointDem Oct 2012 #63

You said - DURHAM D Oct 2012 #33

Thats is correct, that is not the proper use of means testing FogerRox Oct 2012 #80

They could always donate it back to the Treasury. Historic NY Oct 2012 #26

Yes. MannyGoldstein Oct 2012 #27

Here I am asking for knowledge again.... panader0 Oct 2012 #30

It's Social Security's bank account MannyGoldstein Oct 2012 #38

After SS taxes are collected from workers, any money not needed to pay current retirees is HiPointDem Oct 2012 #39

Trust fund money is invested in special Treasury bonds FogerRox Oct 2012 #81

They should get what they are entitled to. SS is already means tested, doc03 Oct 2012 #32

Follow my dad's advice abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #46

I am paying a higher percentage of tax on my pension than doc03 Oct 2012 #75

Yes they should. NYC Liberal Oct 2012 #34

Yes. Universal coverage is important Canuckistanian Oct 2012 #40

Why not... WCGreen Oct 2012 #42

wealthy should not continue drawing beyond what they contributed into the system ahlnord Oct 2012 #43

it was never considered an investment or a fund. it was set up as a pass-through, with each HiPointDem Oct 2012 #47

Thanks for posting this. I was going to. Social Security is already means tested via these JDPriestly Oct 2012 #66

The better use of this argument is abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #48

removing the cap altogether would mean that the top 10% of earners would be funding the HiPointDem Oct 2012 #50

Then lower the SS rates. abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #53

lowering the rates wouldn't do anything about the top 10% of workers paying most of the freight. HiPointDem Oct 2012 #55

My point is simply this abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #57

it hasn't been caused by lifespans beyond expectations at all. increased lifespans were built HiPointDem Oct 2012 #59

Why do you think my idea about the cap is confused? abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #64

Richer people have always lived longer than poorer people; the widening gap in that respect, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #68

Well I definitely agree that those crying for a fix abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #69

I generally agree. But most fundamentally, the whole 'crisis' is way overblown. Yet once they've HiPointDem Oct 2012 #70

Right 10-12 years, dont touch SS FogerRox Oct 2012 #86

the scenario that's more accurately predicted the short-term than either of the others? yes, HiPointDem Oct 2012 #100

ANd it shows in 2062 how assets climb FogerRox Oct 2012 #105

take a look at this chart from the CBO 2011 FogerRox Oct 2012 #88

The major driver is not lifespans FogerRox Oct 2012 #90

Also, let's talk about the federal budget, but not here abumbyanyothername Oct 2012 #56

if you think there's any chance that the government is going to stop funneling money creation HiPointDem Oct 2012 #58

This is what is being suggested regarding the cap TexasBushwhacker Oct 2012 #71

1% of wage earners? i doubt it, top 1% of income starts at $380K (2010) and the social security HiPointDem Oct 2012 #72

From the CBO scoring 2011 FogerRox Oct 2012 #85

Lots of wrong information......#!) 120k is bout the top 10%, not close to 1% or a few % FogerRox Oct 2012 #84

SS is insurance, its legaly insurance and is administered as insurance, FogerRox Oct 2012 #92

Those which The Lord loves, he calls home soonest jberryhill Oct 2012 #51

Of course, faith woos science Oct 2012 #52

The term "Social Security" means just that--socially secure. panader0 Oct 2012 #60

YES YES YES. pnwmom Oct 2012 #61

i think it was hugh downs who said DesertFlower Oct 2012 #65

Yes, they should because if they don't then they resent Cleita Oct 2012 #67

Yes, but their should be no cut off on contributions krawhitham Oct 2012 #73

Yes, they paid into it so they're "Entitled" to receive it. It they are really Raine Oct 2012 #74

no, ss should be means tested ldf Oct 2012 #83

Oh sure ...the rich need it ...to pay for their yacht club membership. L0oniX Oct 2012 #89

If they paid into it they should get benefits. The problem is Twit paid 14% taxes and we paid 28%. LittlestStar Oct 2012 #91

If they earned it, they deserve it (nt) bigwillq Oct 2012 #95

They paid in (presumably) so they ought to get it. Stinky The Clown Oct 2012 #96

Absolutely, they paid in, if they are disabled they are entitled. NotThisTime Oct 2012 #97

It should be their patriotic duty to give up the payments once they receive what they put in. Auntie Bush Oct 2012 #98

If you contribute you should get the money. GoneOffShore Oct 2012 #99

yes; benefits are subject to ordinary income tax, so filthy rich people give a good chunk back. unblock Oct 2012 #101

If you pay into it, you should receive it's benefits. Period. rustydog Oct 2012 #102

Yes, and payroll tax should be applied on incomes above 250,000... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2012 #103

BUST A DEAL... slackmaster Oct 2012 #104