Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Need help explaining the Social Security Trust Fund?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 10:48 AM
Original message
Need help explaining the Social Security Trust Fund?
Probably one the best, most simple explanations of the Social Security Trust Fund from LA Times columnist, Michael Hiltzik. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20100808,0,1359956.column
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. Of note is that the only bonds held in the fund are the surplus amounts that weren't paid out to
Edited on Mon Aug-09-10 11:13 AM by dkf
Beneficiaries. So if you put in 5 dollars but only 4 dollars got paid out to your grandparents and their friends only, 1 dollar was put into the bonds that the regular budget borrowed from the trust funds. So of all the money you added to the fund a much smaller amount is represented by bonds that are owned and owed to us by us.

When social security runs out of the surplus that is represented by the bonds we owe to ourselves, that is what is being referred to as the trust fund running out of money. The question is if we need to pay the surplus bonds from regular taxes how can we afford that and all the rest of the stuff we are responsible for? Also at the time the surplus bonds run out of money the ratio of workers to retirees will be worse than at any other time in the programs history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. The solution to any Social Security shortfall - real or imagined........
Edited on Mon Aug-09-10 11:23 AM by suston96
....JOBS....JOBS.....JOBS....

Guess where the money comes from......JOBS.....JOBS.....JOBS>

As population grows, JOBS must grow. Imagine 9% unemployment with tens of millions unemployed - most of whom will need to be fed and sheltered.

Unless that unemployment drops down to 6% Social Security will be the least of our worries.

I have bookmarked the OP link. Good one and thanks.

Edit: Should have been a reply to the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RB TexLa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That and less medical research. How old do we have to live to anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. What would put social security in the black for the next 100 years
is just pay what ONE president used to balance his budget. Reagan..if you pay that back with the interest it lost just think......that's why social security does not have as much money as it should....presidents took the money OUT TO BALANCE THE BUDGET AND USE FOR OTHER STUFF LIKE WAR WAR WAR WAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Personally I think overfunding social security was a scam to get lower income people
Edited on Mon Aug-09-10 07:46 PM by dkf
To pay more taxes. They knew at the time that when the funds were needed there wouldn't be enough workers to pay for retirees. It really beats me why they thought a worker who couldn't afford to pay for all the retirees could pay for them anyway under the premise that they were obligations for these bonds we owe to ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not enough workers to support retirees and other dependents? That's just silly
Do massive increases in productivity over the last 70 or so years count for nothing? You might as well say that the shrinking number of farmers means that we are all going to starve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-09-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Whether or not that was the intent, that's demonstrably the effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 13th 2024, 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC