Understanding the Social Security scam

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the cap is 97,500 (we'll say 100k), anyone making less paid ssi taxes on 100% of their monies and had 48% of those ssi taxes go to paying the deficit.

Those football players making 2m a year, were taxed for ssi on 5% of their gross income.

[/ QUOTE ]

They also only get benefits based on 5% of their gross income, so this is hardly a flaw.

Then again, you made contributions to my pension plan on 0% of your earnings and I had to make contributions on 100% of my earnings. ZOMG MY PENSION PLAN IS A GET RICH SCHEME FOR YOU!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is flawed. The ssi surplus cannot be repaid. That's 3 trillion dollars of the 10 trillion national debt that was paid for with ssi surpluses.

I was wrong in my original thread when I quoted 2t, it is 3 trillion.

http://www.yellowstone-national-park...s/ssi-fund.htm

If those making 97.5k were paying into a retirement program, then it would be fair and you would be right.

But that is not the case. The Gov't is using the excess to pay the deficit down before going out to the public and borrowing the rest, with no way to repay it, without raising taxes.

So, by raising taxes, they will be taxing us again to pay back our ssi surplus.

It is also a fact, that all they need to do to keep ssi afloat, is raise the cap on ssi taxes to 150k. ZOMG!! A football player making 2m a year, would have to pay ssi taxes on 7.5% of his gross!

We are fast approaching the day, when there will be no ssi surplus due to the outlays to the baby boomers, and congress will not have the 350b each year in ssi taxes to pay down the deficit. Instead they will have to go out and borrow to pay back the 3 trillion to the ssi fund.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all well and good, but none of it is relevant to the idea that the poor are getting a raw deal because they make contributions on a greater percentage of their earnings. The distortions created by the mechanics of the system do NOT find their root at the contribution/benefit formula. Consider the alternative: the rich pay based on 100% of their earnings but get a benefit based on 5% of their earnings. This is better?

[Moseley]

"That's all well and good, but none of it is relevant to the idea that the poor are getting a raw deal because they make contributions on a greater percentage of their earnings. The distortions created by the mechanics of the system do NOT find their root at the contribution/benefit formula. Consider the alternative: the rich pay based on 100% of their earnings but get a benefit based on 5% of their earnings. This is better?"

That's not the way it works. The more you pay in to ssi, the more you get when you retire. So the football player would get more ssi at 62 paying on 150k of his income.

We would not have a problem keeping ssi afloat, if the surplus had not been used to pay down the deficit and the ceiling on ssi taxes had increased with inflation.

The MAJOR problem is: Congress is having to come up with a way of dealing with the fact that they will no longer have 300+ billion in ssi surpluses to pay the deficit, while at the same time, having to come up with billions every year to pay back the 3 trillion ssi surplus.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the way it works. The more you pay in to ssi, the more you get when you retire. So the football player would get more ssi at 62 paying on 150k of his income.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what exactly then is your problem with the contribution/benefit rate?

[ QUOTE ]
We would not have a problem keeping ssi afloat, if the surplus had not been used to pay down the deficit and the ceiling on ssi taxes had increased with inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your problem, and it is totally separate from the issue of setting contribution and benefit rates.

[ QUOTE ]
The MAJOR problem is: Congress is having to come up with a way of dealing with the fact that they will no longer have 300+ billion in ssi surpluses to pay the deficit, while at the same time, having to come up with billions every year to pay back the 3 trillion ssi surplus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Changing the contribution rate so that it exceeds the benefit cost is the only way to eliminate a funding shortfall.