Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry (It's worse)

[Onceler]

THe only reason SS would not be intact in 25 years is if it is privatized. And your best case scenario is worse than the worst case scenario.

There is no logic to that. Privatization is actually the only thing that will save SS. Proponents of SS often argue that hey, we're good through 2037 (now 2036) - I believe you have made that argument on here before. Even among proponents, it's basically accepted that it is unsustainable in its current form. And, as I said, at minimum, we'd be talking about a 25% cut in benefits in 10-20 years.

It's ludicrous to me. I haven't heard one good argument explaining a downside to privatization; not one.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes, but you aren't factoring in the 25 years of trust fund payments. The chart merely compares payroll taxes to benefits. If you factor in the trust fund, the fuding gap as a percentage of GDP is 0.7%.

Do try to READ the SS ADMIN's CONCLUSION. THEY ARE including the trust funds you moron, hence their declaration that the TRUST FUNDS WILL BE DEPLETED IN 2036.

 

[cawacko]

You listen to these government debt reduction commissions, you listen to investors you listen to economists and they almost all say that entitlements need to be reformed. And not to say a lot of people haven't been wrong before but I find it very difficult to believe that Social Security is just a-ok and all these people are concerned about nothing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You listen to these government debt reduction commissions, you listen to investors you listen to economists and they almost all say that entitlements need to be reformed. And not to say a lot of people haven't been wrong before but I find it very difficult to believe that Social Security is just a-ok and all these people are concerned about nothing.

That is because it IS a ok to Dung.... just raise taxes to the tune of 0.7% (according to Dung) of GDP. That is an inconsequential amount to raise taxes..... right? /sarcasm

 

[Bonestorm]

Do try to READ the SS ADMIN's CONCLUSION. THEY ARE including the trust funds you moron, hence their declaration that the TRUST FUNDS WILL BE DEPLETED IN 2036.

Right. And the unfunded liabilities through 2085 amount to 0.7% of GDP.

 

[Bonestorm]

You listen to these government debt reduction commissions, you listen to investors you listen to economists and they almost all say that entitlements need to be reformed. And not to say a lot of people haven't been wrong before but I find it very difficult to believe that Social Security is just a-ok and all these people are concerned about nothing.

I don't give a fuck what "they" say. The long term funding gap is 0.7% of GDP through 2085. That's not a problem. The real entitlement problems are in Medicare and Medicaid because, unlike Social Security costs, their costs are projected to increase exponentially over time.

 

[Bonestorm]

That is because it IS a ok to Dung.... just raise taxes to the tune of 0.7% (according to Dung) of GDP. That is an inconsequential amount to raise taxes..... right? /sarcasm

Annual spending on the military increased by more than double that amount from 2000 through 2011. In the grand scheme, it isn't a real problem.

 

[Onceler]

Unless we keep raising taxes, SS will run out of money by 2036.

How is that not a problem, again?

 

[Bonestorm]

Unless we keep raising taxes, SS will run out of money by 2036.

How is that not a problem, again?

You don't know the difference between the Social Security Trust Fund and Social Security. Unless you're assuming that there will be no working people in the United States of America subject to the payroll tax as of 2036.

Why should anyone listen to you, again?

 

[Onceler]

You don't know the difference between the Social Security Trust Fund and Social Security. Unless you're assuming that there will be no working people in the United States of America subject to the payroll tax as of 2036.

Why should anyone listen to you, again?

You're mathematically challenged if you think the fund can run out & SS is still sustainabile, in a world that will likely have cost of living increases that we can't yet imagine, and lifespans into the 90's and past 100.

I really don't get it. What is the downside to privatization?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You don't know the difference between the Social Security Trust Fund and Social Security. Unless you're assuming that there will be no working people in the United States of America subject to the payroll tax as of 2036.

Why should anyone listen to you, again?

Just say it... the only way we get FULL benefits is if we substantially increase payroll taxes. As of 2036, we only have revenues coming in that amount to 75% of promised benefits. That means what Dung? How much do taxes have to go up?

How much is 0.7% of GDP (and yes, they are projecting increases in GDP each year, which means the costs in dollars goes up each year). Currently they take in about $570B in payroll taxes. How much is 0.7% of GDP Dung?

 

[Bonestorm]

Just say it... the only way we get FULL benefits is if we substantially increase payroll taxes. As of 2036, we only have revenues coming in that amount to 75% of promised benefits. That means what Dung? How much do taxes have to go up?

How much is 0.7% of GDP (and yes, they are projecting increases in GDP each year, which means the costs in dollars goes up each year). Currently they take in about $570B in payroll taxes. How much is 0.7% of GDP Dung?

A fair amount of money in dollar terms, but its only 0.7% of GDP. We increased the defense budge by double that amount over the 2000 to 2011 period without batting an eye.

 

[Onceler]

A fair amount of money in dollar terms, but its only 0.7% of GDP. We increased the defense budge by double that amount over the 2000 to 2011 period without batting an eye.

I batted an eye. Defense has to be cut as well, on a massive scale. It's a separate argument.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're mathematically challenged if you think the fund can run out & SS is still sustainabile, in a world that will likely have cost of living increases that we can't yet imagine, and lifespans into the 90's and past 100.

I really don't get it. What is the downside to privatization?

Dung's downside to privatization is that his master no longer controls the funds. Dung wants the government to run everything for him. He wants no personal responsibility (or as little as possible anyway).

Right now for a couple living to age 65, there is a 25% chance one of them makes it to 97. A 50% chance one lives past 90.

 

[Bonestorm]

You're mathematically challenged if you think the fund can run out & SS is still sustainabile, in a world that will likely have cost of living increases that we can't yet imagine, and lifespans into the 90's and past 100.

Don't preach to me about being mathematically challenged. You're factually challenged. Social Security can pay 75% of scheduled benefits from 2036 through infinity (seriously) through payroll taxes. I know you'd like to think you know better than people that actually study this stuff for a living, but that's the reality if absolutely nothing is done.

I really don't get it. What is the downside to privatization?

I've explained it to you myriad times and have no interest in doing it again.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A fair amount of money in dollar terms, but its only 0.7% of GDP. We increased the defense budge by double that amount over the 2000 to 2011 period without batting an eye.

You can't say the number dung? Why is that do you suppose?

 

[Bonestorm]

Dung's downside to privatization is that his master no longer controls the funds. Dung wants the government to run everything for him. He wants no personal responsibility (or as little as possible anyway).

FARGLE BARGLE.

Right now for a couple living to age 65, there is a 25% chance one of them makes it to 97. A 50% chance one lives past 90.

I'm pretty sure the Social Security Trustees have access to actuarial tables, too.

 

[Onceler]

Don't preach to me about being mathematically challenged. You're factually challenged. Social Security can pay 75% of scheduled benefits from 2036 through infinity (seriously) through payroll taxes. I know you'd like to think you know better than people that actually study this stuff for a living, but that's the reality if absolutely nothing is done.



I've explained it to you myriad times and have no interest in doing it again.

On the 1st point - you think seniors are going to be okay with a 25% decrease in benefits? And you're wrong anyway; no current model reflects the explosion in life expectancy that we're about to see.

On the 2nd, your only real point in previous discussions is that it's not an investment program, which isn't a downside. It's just a statement of fact about the program as it currently exists.

 

[Bonestorm]

You can't say the number dung? Why is that do you suppose?

The unfunded obligations through 2085 are $6.7 Trillion.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The unfunded obligations through 2085 are $6.7 Trillion.

So about $100 BILLION per year shortfall in today's dollars.... and that assumes that growth rates in GDP pick up and unemployment comes down. What do you suppose happens if those don't occur?

But I know.... just keep raising taxes.... right Dung? Why look at other solutions that could work?

While you are correct that Medicare and Medicaid are bigger problems, Social Security is not exactly the 'no big deal' you are making it out to be. Keep in mind, I support creating a donut hole and reinstatement of the tax at higher income levels to help make up the shortfall.