Ponzi: Underachiever compared to our government
If the Wall Street Journal covers a question, it usually offers the info needed for the reader to make an answer. Not so this piece on the Social Security deficit.
Social Security officials project that beginning in 2014, the program will routinely pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, requiring it to draw on reserves that have been funding the rest of the government.
So how much money are we talking about? For years the government has been wasting my FICA contributions instead of saving them for me. I think the GOVERNMENT should cut back and focus on paying back what it owes me. The funds are called “trust” funds.
Raising taxes so it can keep stealing from me hardly appeals. Nor would it be good for the economy.
Raising the retirement age is close to stealing. And would also make job growth harder.
They’ve taken and squandered hundreds of thousands of my dollars – I want to know how they intend to pay me back. And I don’t want it in inflated newly printed dollars. I want government to cut back on things less important than paying me back. And FYI.. that is most things it does.
August 21st, 2010 at 9:18 am
Interesting dilemma. If you had been the government over the past 30 years, how would you have “saved” the excess SS tax revenue? The government did save the money: depositing it with the Treasury in a marked account. The problem came when the Congress treated the money as income rather than as savings deposits (which are a liability in normal accounting). No one had any real incentive to do otherwise as the people were clamoring for more and more good things from the government – wars, pensions, lower taxes, medical care, veterans benefits, advanced military hardware, highways, you name it.
You haven’t suffered any loss yet because you have not been denied a SS claim. The savings account is still there but no longer adequate for the task and therefore needs supplement from general revenue. Or a reduction in demand for the benefits, a task no Member of Congress wants to take on.
Let’s see your Tea Party tackle the problem that your Republicans wouldn’t touch. Which new Tea Party member will be first to get unseated for speaking truth to the electorate?
August 21st, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Government and Congress are the same. One doesn’t “save it” while the other spends it.
The best approach would be to not have taken possession of it. Requiring me to save and invest 15% of my income would have been more efficient, less prone to theft, and better for the economy.
Old poor people should get welfare. Old rich people should be congratulated. And NO money should be taken for “future” security by the untrustworthy government.
As to I’m not “robbed yet”. Get real. Am I supposed to wait for the burgler to finish leaving the house with the TV?
Yikes arguing with you is frustrating. Lots of good debate points but nothing real.
August 21st, 2010 at 7:13 pm
You may not have a lot of luck to get America to return to the 19th century where things were nowhere as good as you imagine. It’s the old story of trying to return to a golden age that never was. Blame Bell and Edison for revolutionizing communication of ideas. You are a child of the 20th century and will have to live with its drawbacks in a prosperity you probably could never have achieved in the 19th century. Enjoy the doughnut and ignore the hole.
August 21st, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Sorry….still trying to figure out how holding government accountable for social security trust funds has a causal relationship with relative prosperity between the 19th, 20th & now 21st centuries. No one is pining for a return to the 19th century, just the ability to keep and control one’s own earnings. You, know those pesky inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the government is supposed to protect for every citizen.
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 am
The Social Security Trust Fund exists, just not in the form usually advertised. It is called the US Government. The so-called fund was always just an accounting convenience with the full faith of the USG behind it. Whether it accumulated more or less than needed for planned payouts didn’t matter because the payouts are dictated by law, not by the financial condition of the fund. If the fund disappeared tomorrow, the payouts would continue. If the USG ever decides to change the deal, the existence of the fund would be irrelevant except for political fodder. Social Security law, which is all that controls Social Security, can be changed at any time by the Congress with or without the President’s approval if necessary, and from time to time the Social Security laws have been changed. Tax structure changes, benefit rate changes, pension eligibility age changes, COLA changes, etc. Ultimately, the deal will have to change as pensioners love longer than planned for. If you have a great idea for how the change can be managed, holler at your CO-DEL. Meanwhile, the”fund” does provide plenty of political fodder and angst.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Forgive me, but I translate your argument into my terms as “They lied while they taxed you for the last 20 years, so let them tax you some more to fix it.”
EVERY SINGLE PENNY they are spending is stolen. Social Security is just another exercise in the government stealing and lying about it. Only in this case they are contributing to the very thing the program was “designed” to prevent: poverty in the elderly.
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:38 am
I understands the concern2soI am very l glad to hear that you got your Supra fixed, I remember reading about some of your problems5cxb !.