-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
Yes. It's called wage theft. It's called "minimum wage". It's called tax the poor but not the rich. It's called "rent". It's called privatization of essential public services. It's called banking, payday loans, etc. Lots of similar scams the rich use to take money from the poor.
juliusa
Active Member
Ok, I musunderstood when you said the taxes were being cut.
I'm not sure how cutting SS or Medicare payments helps the rich. They will get less just like everyone else.
The SS and Medicare laws cut the payments. Payments are limited to the taxes that are taken in. If you have not heard, SS and Medicare are going bankrupt, like all ponzi schemes do eventually.
That's a fallacy. SS has billions (or maybe trillions) owed to it by the government which they "borrowed" to fund unnecessary wars. Even if it's not going to be paid back, removing the tax cap would solve the SS problem. Medicare is a whole 'nuther story, which a single payer healthcare system would fix. A reduction in the bloated military spending would also solve the problem. To me this the cuts to both seem to say "Kill off people who aren't working as quickly as possible". You can't say something is going broke when what's actually happening is that legislators are creating poison pills to kill the programs.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Who else ?
It is more than a little obvious that the rich have tremendous economic and political leverage in all walks of life. You should spend a day at your state legislature and watch politicians in action.
SDRick
Active Member
There are a multitude of reasons for flat wages since Reagan but at least wages are just beginning to tick up . Yes, I get it, CEO bashing. Let's take CEO pay (and may as well throw in overpaid rich movie stars, athletes and entertainers) and the cost of living would barely budge. We would still have poor people. Do I think these overpaid folks are worth it, in some cases no, other cases sure. But who am I to say and dictate what someone should get paid.
When people could own a house and raise a family on one salary, corporate tax was 70%. and there was graduated tax so the high earners paid more on the income above a certain amount. Also there were no income taxes on those who made what today would be $250,000. You can't have a consumer economy if consumers have no disposable income.
I get the comparison to a Ponzi scheme, because you have new "investors" paying out earlier "investors." However, there are significant differentiators from actual Ponzi schemes, the most important being that participation is compulsory, not voluntary. In a traditional Ponzi scheme, collapse occurs due to growth and the inability to coerce additional investment. The problem with SS was similar due to the population curve, but because it's compulsory, collection rates can make up the difference.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Is a municipal bond a ponzi scheme ?
How about taxes that presume future growth ? Trumps corporate tax 'reform,' for example ?
No, neither are. There are many other types of investment schemes which are fraudulent even just ill conceived, but neither of your examples are paid out immediately by funds contributed by a new investor.
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia
juliusa
Active Member
Wrong. They are counting all that being "paid back".
When the fund balance reaches 0, all they will be legally permitted to pay out is what they take in - so benefits will be cut.
SSA thought the "peak" of the trust fund would be 2018, but thanks to the strong economy they now think it will be 2019. All downhill from there. Summary: Actuarial Status of the Social Security Trust Funds
Ponzi scheme is a strong word and usually indicates a type of investment fraud. SS and Medicare have similarities - people "pay in" to the system and often believe they are funding their future income and health care needs in retirement. They are not - they are funding the income and health care needs of current retirees (similar to a ponzi scheme), and are dependent on future workers to fund their needs in retirement. Works fine in an expanding economy and population - falls apart when that expansion is not sufficient. Baby boomers are why there was a surplus each year, and why there will be a deficit going forward.
Last edited:
The just-released Trustees Report shows that Social Security has an accumulated surplus of roughly $2.9 trillion. It further shows that at the end of the century, it will cost just 6.07% of GDP. That is a considerably smaller percentage of GDP than Germany, Austria, France and most other industrialized countries spend on their retirement, survivors and disability programs.
Unsurprisingly, because Social Security’s income and outgo are projected out so far—three quarters of a century—the Report projects a modest shortfall. (This is a much longer projection period than private pensions use and even more than most other countries use for their Social Security programs.)
According to the new report, Social Security is 100% funded for the next sixteen years, 93% funded for the next 25 years, 87% funded over the next 50 years and 84% funded for the next three-quarters of a century. There is no question that Congress can raise enough revenue to eliminate the projected shortfall. We can afford to expand Social Security.
Unsurprisingly, because Social Security’s income and outgo are projected out so far—three quarters of a century—the Report projects a modest shortfall. (This is a much longer projection period than private pensions use and even more than most other countries use for their Social Security programs.)
According to the new report, Social Security is 100% funded for the next sixteen years, 93% funded for the next 25 years, 87% funded over the next 50 years and 84% funded for the next three-quarters of a century. There is no question that Congress can raise enough revenue to eliminate the projected shortfall. We can afford to expand Social Security.
juliusa
Active Member
juliusa
Active Member
That is good news if you only need it for the next 16 years. Sucks that your benefits will be decreased if you are around after that.
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, a "modest" shortfall. That is good news!! Seniors will only have a modest reduction in benefits. I'm sure they'll be ok with it.
Medicare is not as fortunate. Already being depleted, and goes broke in 2026. Maybe 91% coverage of hospital stays is ok - just a "modest" shortfall? Trustees Report Summary
Yes, just raise taxes on our bratty kids to fund our retirement.
Last edited:
juliusa
Active Member
Agreed. It is not an actual Ponzi scheme, just has some of the attributes.
But if a private company proposed a retirement plan modeled after SS, or a health plan modeled after Medicare, I'm pretty sure the regulators would not allow it.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The 'surplus' does not exist; it is an IOU of the general fund and the money has been spent. Since the government will have to either/or raise taxes or reduce the value of the dollar to pay the IOU and those effects are borne by the SS beneficiaries, it is a little more than disingenuous of the report.
Not quite true.
Social Security funds are invested in Treasury Bills. This is a indeed a secure loan to the government. The loan is being paid back with interest to the Social Security Fund. T-Bills are the most secure form of security in the world...until Trump decides to default on the US' debt obligations in a fit of pique to try and get money for his idiotic border wall.
juliusa
Active Member
Yes, they blended the accounting many years back, so deficits and debt do not differentiate between the "trust funds" and the general fund - it is a combined number.
It was a nice slight of hand useful to politicians when SS and Medicare were running a surplus - made the annual budget look like we had a surplus when we really didn't, and made the debt look smaller. As is typical of politicians, they did their best to make themselves look good (less bad??) while creating a problem for the future.
Of course, politicians now will simply point out that "the deficit is not really as big as it seems" and the "debt is not really going up as much as it seems" because part of it is the SS/Medicare deficit. That is if they don't pass a law to change the statute on how the accounting/reporting is done.
Emblematic of our lying thieving deceptive government.
- Status
Similar threads
