General Discussion

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)

26. I guess, if you assume the economy will improve dramatically. I'm not that optimistic.

Reply to ucrdem (Reply #17)

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:49 PM

Oct 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

195 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As it is the plan is to cut social security benefits by 25% when the trust funds are spent. [View all] dkf Oct 2013 OP

So you're for the CPI? trumad Oct 2013 #1

My personal calculations don't rely on social security. dkf Oct 2013 #9

Are you for a 25% cut in 20 years? Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #61

so you're for chain CPI as well. trumad Oct 2013 #63

No, Im not. Are you for a 25% cut in 20 years? Do you think that is an idea that should be Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #66

See post 62. trumad Oct 2013 #68

I hear the website for SS has been a little buggy. BluegrassStateBlues Oct 2013 #2

opinion or fact? link spanone Oct 2013 #3

Wow. You still haven't internalized these basic numbers? dkf Oct 2013 #27

While SS is actuarially sound for the next 10-15 years Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #4

NO, that's not the only possible choice. Dammit. grasswire Oct 2013 #16

No means testing makes SS a welfare program. Vincardog Oct 2013 #54

Are student loans welfare? demwing Oct 2013 #78

Unemployment insurance is not means tested in any State I know of. Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #87

There is no means test for Unemployment Insurance nor do I believe that anyone is denied Student Vincardog Oct 2013 #190

1. Unemployment benefits require I search for work demwing Oct 2013 #191

I agree. It is foolish to just say SS is OK, or there are simple fixes. Hoyt Oct 2013 #20

The cap has been raised more than once before, the last time in the late 80s-early 90s period brush Oct 2013 #33

The Congressional Budget Office for one thing. Hoyt Oct 2013 #35

Raising the cap means . . . brush Oct 2013 #37

Raising the cap means everything above roughly $105k, gets hit with a new 6% FICA tax. Hoyt Oct 2013 #44

Still no need to cut SS brush Oct 2013 #50

Like what, food stamps, jobs, unemployment benefits, education, etc. We could cut military, but Hoyt Oct 2013 #51

How about the obvious brush Oct 2013 #91

I just said that above. But, again, that will cost lots of jobs, and the thugs will want retribution Hoyt Oct 2013 #98

I keep seeing Unemployment benefits linked with entitlements DeadEyeDyck Oct 2013 #137

And it runs out on most people in today's economy. Hoyt Oct 2013 #140

Boo hoo, by the way, for the 105K club having to pay the same FICA tax on more of Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #88

You aren't getting it. SS is only one place where we need tax revenues. Hoyt Oct 2013 #89

It's not an either-or choice. Raise taxes on the wealthy - all taxes, not just SS, leveymg Oct 2013 #131

What does boo hoo mean brush Oct 2013 #92

I think he is for it, as am I. But make no mistake, it does not solve the problem. Hoyt Oct 2013 #96

You think you can find a Democratic candidate who will support a 6% tax increase for SS, and Hoyt Oct 2013 #95

ELIMINATE THE CAP!! Bobcat Oct 2013 #132

"SS is actuarially sound for the next 10-15 years" only if the politicians don't borrow more from it AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #32

Excellent point. And that should be on the table too, to prevent if from ever happening again. Hoyt Oct 2013 #36

Um, no. jeff47 Oct 2013 #72

"When individuals pay SS payroll taxes, the money goes into the General Fund of the Treasury with AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #75

Exactly. It is gone, and no use crying about it. Hoyt Oct 2013 #100

It really doesn't work that way. ucrdem Oct 2013 #105

The value of those bonds would pay today's SS benefits for about 3 years. Hoyt Oct 2013 #108

If that was true, we would have no national debt. jeff47 Oct 2013 #113

They didn't borrow trillions in FICA taxes in excess of the amount of the trust funds. PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #107

Really? You're going to quote Republicans on how Social Security works? jeff47 Oct 2013 #112

Dailykos is not a Republican-run website. In fact, it is critical of the GOP. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #116

Read your own damn quote. jeff47 Oct 2013 #119

Read the entire thing in context, or not. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #122

I am. You're trying to blame Republicans for something that doesn't make any sense jeff47 Oct 2013 #126

Daily Kos is wrong. The $6.5 trillion is what the fund would need to fund 75 years of payments muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #146

"default on the US debt"? It doesn't have to go that far. For those of us who have paid into SS AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #177

Yes, I do disagree with what you said - it's incorrect muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #179

86 billion dollars per year over 75 years is needed to sustain Social Security? CreekDog Oct 2013 #192

$6.5 trillion is the extra amount that would be needed to be paid into the trust fund now muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #193

but that doesn't make any sense, why would you need it now? CreekDog Oct 2013 #194

It's a standard way to measure money muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #195

The bonds are barely enough to cover benefits for 3 years - not much of a trust fund. Hoyt Oct 2013 #121

Because 0 taxes are being paid. jeff47 Oct 2013 #123

Actually, I'm not desperate to destroy it, just the opposite. Hoyt Oct 2013 #127

Facts like the 1% GDP growth you are projecting? jeff47 Oct 2013 #128

First do you have a cite for the 1%. Second, even at 2%, a few years of recession will bring the Hoyt Oct 2013 #133

It's in the trustee's report that also has the shortfall. jeff47 Oct 2013 #135

The "low" assumption in Trustee's Report is over 2%. Hoyt Oct 2013 #138

Great Point Bobcat Oct 2013 #134

I think it would be foolish to expect the US to keep up the growth it achieved in the last 100 years muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #147

Growth isn't zero-sum jeff47 Oct 2013 #156

Lift the cap. The solution is easy, unless you're not a Democrat. eom leveymg Oct 2013 #130

Is anyone under 45 actually including SS as a material part of their retirement plans? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #5

All the better, Wall Street thanks you. When they get their hands closeupready Oct 2013 #8

No idea how this applies to what I said Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #10

Well, try thinking - it helps. closeupready Oct 2013 #25

Thinking...you should try it first little guy Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #45

So who are you now - Yoda? closeupready Oct 2013 #109

You were done before you started. Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #160

So yesterday. Wow. closeupready Oct 2013 #182

Your 'prudent thinking' is 'I think I will be rich, so no-one under 45 should assume SS will exist'? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #148

You can shorten it to that Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #158

What you said, in reply #5 muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #176

Let me help you think through this... Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #178

" Planning for a full SS benefit in its current form 20+ years from now is not prudent. " muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #180

With merely 800+ posts, he's a right-wing disruptor, IMO. closeupready Oct 2013 #183

I'm right wing? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #187

It is prudent for everyone Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #186

How can something impossible for some people be prudent for them? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #188

Your conclusion is a huge leap Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #189

Agreed, on all points. n/t AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #181

I agree 100%. I'm not. dkf Oct 2013 #12

Solidarity! Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #13

With who ... Republicans? No. closeupready Oct 2013 #184

Yes, the working poor, and millions of other Americans. ProSense Oct 2013 #23

Yes, my entire life is based on "luck" Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #47

Right, ProSense Oct 2013 #67

Who suggested SS get cut? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #161

You still had luck. jeff47 Oct 2013 #70

It also ignores that people have lost their life savings due to ProSense Oct 2013 #76

It will be "broke" as in it will have used all surplus funds. dkf Oct 2013 #77

And that prediction is based on GDP growth of 1%. jeff47 Oct 2013 #111

Are you sure about that 1% figure? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #149

The older reports from the Bush years used 1% GDP jeff47 Oct 2013 #172

This is not "luck" Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #164

That wasn't an exhaustive list. jeff47 Oct 2013 #165

I don't need an exhaustive list from you as I've seen the character of your data points Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #166

Yet your point is there was no luck involved in your financial life. jeff47 Oct 2013 #170

You're hopeless Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #171

Not at all. jeff47 Oct 2013 #173

Straw man and still wrong Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #174

The pressure will be off just us Oct 2013 #46

I keep hearing on DU that SS should never be cut at all, in any circumstances. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #64

I'm 46. It isn't part of my retirement plan. Throd Oct 2013 #102

the majority of people with a 401(k) have less than $100,000 in it so I would say a lot of people liberal_at_heart Oct 2013 #106

That's fine Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #162

you're not a bad person, just lucky. Not everyone is as fortunate which is why we have to make sure liberal_at_heart Oct 2013 #185

Where did you get that figure? brush Oct 2013 #6

I've read the same thing Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #14

A wholesale revolt would produce even larger cuts, and austerity. Not very smart. Hoyt Oct 2013 #124

Even the IMF has finally come out against austerity because it didn't work . . . brush Oct 2013 #136

A revolt you'd support dang sure wouldn't improve things here. Hoyt Oct 2013 #139

There are times in life you have to take a stand . . . brush Oct 2013 #141

I earned them too, and need them, but sometimes you gotta accept realities. Hoyt Oct 2013 #142

My realities are different than yours. Chan790 Oct 2013 #155

Yeah, what is your point? cui bono Oct 2013 #7

So someone propose it. I'm just trying to lay out the options as proposed. dkf Oct 2013 #15

Someone has proposed it, Blue_In_AK Oct 2013 #29

Belief that the trajectory of the economy is frozen is wrong HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #11

The borrowed money is being used. That is the trust fund. dkf Oct 2013 #18

Yes, I don't object to that. But it also must be repaid. HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #30

Not exactly. ucrdem Oct 2013 #17

I guess, if you assume the economy will improve dramatically. I'm not that optimistic. Hoyt Oct 2013 #26

It's a highly pessimistic projection. ucrdem Oct 2013 #40

Not pessimistic enough, IMO. Disability Fund, "having a little trouble." That's understatement too. Hoyt Oct 2013 #42

The portion of the payroll tax supporting disability should be broken-out separately ... dawg Oct 2013 #48

Still only solves only a portion of problem, not to mention Hoyt Oct 2013 #49

The prediction is based on 1% GDP growth. The average for the last 100 years is closer to 3%. jeff47 Oct 2013 #71

Where does it state that the prediciton is on 1% growth? grantcart Oct 2013 #83

In the details of the report everyone is citing. jeff47 Oct 2013 #110

Just as I thought you have no clue what you are talking about. grantcart Oct 2013 #143

I like how you point to a report that disagrees with your earlier statements jeff47 Oct 2013 #157

I quote the SSA's trustee report which is in absolute agreement grantcart Oct 2013 #175

Probably you are correct because the Trust Fund was created to finance the Baby Boomer retirement Samantha Oct 2013 #58

Good point. ucrdem Oct 2013 #86

So our only two options are chained CPI or a 25% cut? Scaremongering bullshit. n/t winter is coming Oct 2013 #19

Exactly! Scaremonger bullshit. brush Oct 2013 #21

Yes, it is scaremongering. randome Oct 2013 #22

Yes, the cap should be ended, coverage expanded, retirement age lowered. closeupready Oct 2013 #28

Where would funds come from for that? If you tax upper 5% at 100%, it wouldn't cover that. Hoyt Oct 2013 #31

Wow....so much wrong. jeff47 Oct 2013 #59

Do you really think our economy is going to react like historical averages? We aren't going back Hoyt Oct 2013 #93

You being pessimistic is not an economic model. jeff47 Oct 2013 #118

cutting the military budget WILL do something for social security. madrchsod Oct 2013 #115

They have different funding streams. jeff47 Oct 2013 #120

But you have to ask: Is it better than Canadian-style single payer? ProSense Oct 2013 #24

I see we've entered the "It's Only Sensible" stage. Marr Oct 2013 #34

I see we've entered the "What other people think" stage Kolesar Oct 2013 #41

Well, no -- Chained-CPI would cut most retiree's benefits by about 5.5% Kolesar Oct 2013 #38

So, in summary, we should accept the hair cut now on the off chance we might have to have Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #39

Those long-term trust fund forecasts have proven frightfully inaccurate ... dawg Oct 2013 #43

Yeah during the Reagan years the changes were supposed to suffice for 80 years. dkf Oct 2013 #79

Or ... the current estimates might be overstating the problem. dawg Oct 2013 #168

You are aware that SS was a pay as you go system for the first 50 or so years and the OVERPAYMENTS Vincardog Oct 2013 #52

What you've just written pretty much covers our end of the debate. pa28 Oct 2013 #53

Too damned true. Notice the crickets form the "moderates"? Vincardog Oct 2013 #55

Pay as you go works especially fine when you've got a lot more workers than recipients. dkf Oct 2013 #80

agree..... madrchsod Oct 2013 #125

"INCREASE the numbers of jobs and wages of those jobs" - well, that would be nice muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #150

They've been predicting Social Security will run out of money in 20 years jeff47 Oct 2013 #56

Actually Republican opponents of the plan said Social Security would run out of money Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #90

The answer is to eliminate the cap. Not raise it, eliminate it. nt stevenleser Oct 2013 #57

Some people seem to think a 25% cut is just dandy, if it comes in 20 years. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #60

see post 62..thats where I stand. trumad Oct 2013 #65

I was referring to the wording of a prior OP where that was tossed in as an afterthought like Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #69

I have a radical idea dsc Oct 2013 #62

You've got a fundamental error in your post. jeff47 Oct 2013 #73

use the funds to pay the benefits dsc Oct 2013 #74

Can't. jeff47 Oct 2013 #114

so? dsc Oct 2013 #144

I think the suggestion is to pass a law allowing general fund spending to pay some SS benefits muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #151

I'm nervous about 2016 and SSDI madville Oct 2013 #81

You got it. Democrat politicians who stick their head in the sand aren't doing us favors. dkf Oct 2013 #82

"Democrat politicians" ProSense Oct 2013 #84

"Democrat" politicians, huh? Marr Oct 2013 #117

By 2031, not 2023 - p.54 of the CBO 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #152

Bullshit. 99Forever Oct 2013 #85

The cut would be only 5.5% @age 70, It is not a 25% cut. Kolesar Oct 2013 #94

No...when the surplus trust funds are spent the payroll taxes are expected to cover only 75% dkf Oct 2013 #97

You don't understand Chained CPI Kolesar Oct 2013 #99

I'm not asserting any calculation on chained CPI. dkf Oct 2013 #101

You mentioned chained CPI in the first sentence of your post, Kolesar Oct 2013 #103

Asian female in Hawaii...my odds are good. dkf Oct 2013 #104

I'm jealous. dawg Oct 2013 #169

Why are people so resistant to just raising the cap? LongTomH Oct 2013 #129

and if republicans would stop spending social security B Calm Oct 2013 #145

That is pretty damned mystifying. nt Codeine Oct 2013 #163

Here's a CBO estimate of the median taxes and benefits for different ages muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #153

Solve the problem when Democrats regain control in the House. MrsKirkley Oct 2013 #154

Your trust fund will be just fine Capt. Obvious Oct 2013 #159

Chained CPI won't avoid that Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #167