Re: COLA for social security
- From: "Paul T. Holland" <pholland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:01:36 GMT
"Harvey R. Stone" wrote:
"Paul T. Holland" <pholland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:474F313C.4F31C4CC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
my two cents on this [and jmo]
simply 'replacing' the money [converted to obligation notes from the
treasury] isn't actually what is at issue.
presuming that the monies had never been shifted to other uses, and
remained tucked away in a single account only for ss, there remains the
problem of how to finance the baby boom generation that has simply lived
so long.
+70 million individuals that are coming into the system - and living
longer
it is important to understand the math -
Do you think LBJ understood the math?
....<wry grin>...all too well. he is the one after all who took the ss
trust fund monies [i.e. the 'lockbox'] and moved 'em over to be 'on
budget'.
[lbj did have Wilbur J. Cohen has his cabinet sec for hew - prob the
most knowledgeable and astute numbers man of his era - he was a research
aide for the comm. that wrote the original ss legislation]
this enabled the gov. to use those funds for the extra expenses created
by the Vietnam war - this, in lieu of raising taxes.
important to avoid partisanship - both dem and repub sides of the aisle
assisted lbj in this, rather than tough out the hard choices to find the
monies elsewhere.
and, ever since, the ss fund has been a piggybank.
today, the treasury notes issued to be 'placeholders' for the moved over
monies are in the 4 'trillion' dollar range, and climbing...a simple
historical fact that as a result of those accounting maneuvers, we
haven't paid all the bills for 'nam yet...
the bill on those treasury notes comes due [kind of the 'drop dead date'
- pun intended] starting in 2017 and extends until 2041...so - an entire
generation is indentured to the spending/bookkeeping legerdemain begun
in the mid 60's. - and the 70 million boomer voters, of whatever
political stripe, who went along with this for 4 decades are just
passing it on to the next generation to with. a 'credit' society indeed
-
yet, at the same time this is also when medicare was instituted as part
of the great society programs. both devil and angel
*factual not political comment: for today's war we are selling general
treasury bonds to (mostly) overseas investors including china, japan,
india, etc. in lieu of raising taxes to pay for the current war(s)
whatever happened to war bonds that previous generations bought to pay
for this country's expeditions?
the system was set up during a time when the elder population was a
small percent of the total
why? - because they didn't live very long. the 'average' annuitant would
only draw from the ss system for 2.5 - 5 years after retirement because
then they died...simple facts.
yes, we all new the couple who lived to a ripe old age - every family or
community had a few - but the majority of folk didn't live much past the
early to mid 60's in life
but, with the wonderful advances in medicine, nutrition, etc., we have
extended that draw 'out' period to over 18 years... now 78 yo
yet there has been no increase in the funding stream devoted to ss - the
dollar amount being withheld is - in proportion - still relatively the
same as when we lived a much shorter life.
also it is important to know what the law actually intended to put in
place: a 'supplement' to each individual's retirement nestegg.
the law was 'not' to be the 'only' old age support - rather a helpmate.
now, without resorting to pointing a finger in any direction - congress
as a whole, the various administrations, 'and' the voters, have known
these numbers for over 20 years without being able to sit down together
and address them as the facts they are - not politics, just the math of
it all.
we've had numerous well certified studies over the +20 years that show
us exactly how much money there is and the various solutions.
while it is true that by diverting the ss trust monies over to the
general ledger we fudged the general ledger, it doesn't change the
numbers 'within' ss at all - we still are paying out more than we have
collected for the purpose. because we live so much longer.
the diversion only means that the younger generations have a larger
general debt than the books reveal.
we have only slightly addressed the true shortfalls by changing the age
of retirement - now an upsliding scale above 65, but even so we haven't
truly addressed just how to fund the already existing need.
the only money is our own -
Oh my well said and wll thought out. Do you think when Soc Sec was drawn
up they included all the people on SocSec that are here in this country
illegally.
ah....i'll answer below...
In the SocSec office where they try to help people, nearly
every chair is full of drug addicts and people who can not even speak
English seeking payments.
here is why i disagree with how you have set up your example -
yes, those people are there, but!
soc sec goes to those who have paid in and we know that since they/we
live longer, they/we are taking out more than they put in
this is why we have to re-do both the p/r deduction formula, and figure
out what to do about fewer paying in than before [in the original
configuration, +20 paid in for every 1 taking out - remember we died
quickly!] nowadays, the ratio is somewhere about 3|1 and slipping. [yup
- the +70 boomers again]
it was during the reagan years ['83] that the ss tax was increased to
address some of the looming shortfall, and once again the surpluses were
raided. the '93 clinton increase was put in to pay for higher medicare
costs so it doesn't really apply to the point of 'raided' funds.
ssdi goes those those who have worked and paid in - but since they are
starting early, and [mostly] didn't work a full span of time, they also
take out more than they pay in. remember that ssdi wasn't part of the
original legislation rather added later
that leaves ssi which is not funded from the ss funds at all - while
administered by ssa, the money for ssi comes from general tax receipts,
not the trust fund.
so whether someone speaks english isn't at issue - they either worked
enough quarters todraw ss/ssdi, or they didn't. so 'our' ss dollars
aren't being diluted by such.
now those looking to ssi are a valid concern for all taxpayers since
that money comes from the general fund
a digression - we also have to remember that in the early 70's we
altered the formulation to install automatic indexing for a cola [cost
of living adj] each year -
tagged to the cpi-w [consumer price index - urban wage earners and
clerical workers.]
many theoretical economists hold that this is not the correct way to tag
an increase - that there are other more accurate index methods -
but in any case, most folks don't realize that the increase isn't
something set by congress each year, but since '83 a set formula based
on increases in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to
the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the cola became
effective.
Do we think anyone saw that coming?
yes, time after time after time - sigh...
Adjustments
need to be made and they are all hard choices. Who in government has the
guts to do that?
well - with 70 million voters about to start collecting staring at
them...and a younger voting class who hasn't much bothered with the
polls 'cause they mostly think their voice isn't heard...
Who that wants to do something about that and wants to be
in government,,,, has the courage to do that?
"we have seen the enemy and he is us"...[pogo and albert]
Name them please,,, so I
can support them.
one point to make is the idea that this is a 2 party political country -
but that is compar. recent - for much of early times we had multiple
parties and - imo - were healthier politically for it. you could
actually talk directly to the candidate. heck, this year you can't even
watch the prim debates if you don't have cable...how did THAT happen
that only those who PAY for television get to see debates?
i'm just old fashioned enough to say start local - get a city /county
government to be open and responsive, and use the leverage to go up to
the state level and then national. don't write emails put pen to paper
and put a postage stamp on - friends on the hill tell me that it really
does make a diff.
let your representative KNOW that it MATTERS to you
well, as usual i went on way too long, if you're still reading thanks
for being interested enough to bother.
be well
paul
Harv.
d'huit wrote:
"Harvey R. Stone" <hrstone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ojp3j.27353$lD6.8422@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Judy Bay" <jbay2@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ICo3j.3903$so3.1370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What to do? Make the government put back the money they spent in other
places!
Pretty soon this conversation gets into politics,,,, in other words
peoples
opinion of what has taken place or whose fault something is. It can not
remain in the world of facts and what actually takes place or has taken
place.
I, for one, get a little upset when people knowingly say or do things to
slant the truth. :-) You have just made LBJ turn over in his grave
with your question. Tooo much truth does that ya know.
How about lets change the subject??? Arthritis support is a good
subject.
Harv
it's not opinion, nor political opinion. it is the truth and an
historical
fact that social security money has been used for other things, harv.
whether it was done by LBJ or any other administration (and it was done
by
other administrations and other congresses, too.) judy didn't say
anything
about just who, specifically, nor what political party nor which
administration nor which congress did it . . . but, you did. it doesn't
matter, in reality, who did it, but that it was done (and continues to be
done); and that kind of misdirection of those funds
contributes/contributed
to the longterm social securtity problem at hand.
and btw, social security and social security disability benefits is very
much a topic of interest and need, especially to arthritics who depend
upon
those benefits. political or not. if we hide our heads in the sand
about
it, those benefits will eventually become non-existent.
kate
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: COLA for social security
- From: Harvey R. Stone
- Re: COLA for social security
- Next by Date: Re: COLA for social security
- Next by thread: Re: COLA for social security
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
