| Author |
Message |
    
Bill P
Citizen
Username: Mrincredible
Post Number: 131
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 8:17 am: | 
|
tom-
Unless the weakening dollar causes a massive shift in foreign reserve banks to the Euro and plunges us into a massive depression.
But that's another thread.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
tom -- the new money coming in grows at a 3.5% rate? Does the tax rate increase by 3.5%? Do we get more workers? Does the cap go up from 89K?
How? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7937
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 9:23 am: |
|
I don't think anyone expects interest rates to stay at the low levels they are now. The 1.8% figure will go up as interest rates go up.
There are so many variables in calculating interest rates, income and future benefits there can be all sorts of projections. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
THE PRESIDENT: I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid out principles....
Q: But, sir, but Democrats have made it pretty clear that they're not interested in that. They want you to lay it out. And so, what I'm asking is, don't —
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sure they do. The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival. I'm interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I'm not interested in playing political games.
No plans in sight. |
Carl Thompson
Citizen
Username: Topcat
Post Number: 113
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Andy Borowitz - borowitzreport.com
**************
WHITE HOUSE REPORTER TURNS OUT TO BE CHENEY
Fake Moustache Falls Off Veep During Press Briefing
The White House press corps was rocked by another scandal today as a man thought to be a professional journalist was revealed to be Vice President Dick Cheney wearing a fake moustache.
The shocking discovery took place during a daily briefing at the White House in which spokesman Scott McClellan took the following question from a reporter he referred to only as “Herb”: “Wouldn’t you agree that President Bush’s plan for reforming Social Security totally rocks?”
Before Mr. McClellan could respond to the question, the reporter’s moustache suddenly fell off his face, revealing him to be none other that Vice President Cheney.
Mr. Cheney, unaware that his disguise had fallen off and seemingly oblivious to the audible gasps of the journalists in the room, continued: “And wouldn’t you agree that anyone who opposes it hates our country?”
After adding, “And isn’t everything in Iraq going really well these days?” the vice president noticed that his fake moustache was on the carpet at his feet.
He then quickly excused himself and bolted out of the room.
Hours after the incident, the White House took great pains to explain Mr. Cheney’s dual role as vice president of the United States and obsequious journalist.
“For the past three years, we have consistently stated that Vice President Cheney has been in a secure, undisclosed location,” Mr. McClellan told reporters. “That location was, in fact, the White House press room.”
Elsewhere, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she would not run for president in 2008 “unless the Democrats nominate somebody really easy again.”
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
cjc-- A vigorous economy produces more tax revenue.
Look at the SS trustees report:
1.8% growth in the economy produces enough revenue to keep SS solvent untill 2042.
The CBO assumes a higher rate of growth--2.6 %
AND -- more SS tax revenue--thusly SS is solvent untill 2052.
Once the Boomers are dead the need to pay out decreases. SO the crunch is over.
If the economy averages 1.8% growth-as the SS trustees suggest- thru to 2042
-we will be in a depression the likes unseen in the history of the USA. Total collapse of the dollar. hyperinflation--God help us-- if that happens.
Getting a SS check will be the least of your worries. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3289
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Foj -- I know a growing economy produces more tax revenue overall, but how does it add to the SS coffers if the amount of revenue taxed at the 12% rate remains at the 90K level? That level and the ensuing FICA-specific revenues do not appear to rise.
Don't you still have a draw-down on reserves (IOUs) and eventually large and growing deficits if you maintain the level of promised benefits? Sure you'll get a check, but 20% less than previous retirees as I've read.
Thanks for your responses. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 770
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Not all growth will be at the 100k plus level. More workers can increase overall contributions, higher pay for lower wage workers can increase contributions. In fact, if wages increase faster for lower wage workers, no change in the cap would need to even be considered.
Not everyone who will get a pay increase will be a high wage earner, no matter what Bush seems to want. (ok, that was unfair, and was based on my overall dislike of Bush and comments I've heard from other people. It was not based on hard facts I've seen for myself.) |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7942
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Also the $90k figure increases with wages.
Also, I don't think Bush is making his point by assuming a 1.8% GNP growth. The 1.8% is the return on invested assets, which is sure to go up as interest rates rise. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3290
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
I've looked at both CBO and SSA testimonies and their accompanying graphs, and I don't see "outlays" line plunging suddenly with the death of the Boomers.
There hasn't been any testimony to the effect that there's not a problem here. Even Democrats are starting to admit it. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
cjc said--I don't see "outlays" line plunging suddenly with the death of the Boomers.
Foj says:
Time for a link-me thinks--please
Oh really? That would seem to be an oversight or what?
With the Boomers dead--outlays would do what?
1) go down?
2) remain static?
3) go up?
That should be a no-brainer--fewer people retiring = fewer outlays.
3.6% growth in GDP yeilds revenues that enable 100% payouts of SS untill 2072.
By then the Boomers are dead-- there will no need to pay them.
There will no hole-no gap- ever. Period.
cjc said:Foj -- I know a growing economy produces more tax revenue overall,
Foj says--exactly my point, thank you.
The difference 'tween 1.8 % growth and 2.6% growth. yields 10 additional years of payouts at the 100 % rate. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3291
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Foj -- http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6068/02-03-SocialSecurity.pdf
Go to Figure 1, Page 3.
And separately:
Statement of Thomas R. Saving, Ph.D.
Public Trustee, Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds
College Station, Texas
Testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means
March 09, 2005
"As a result of the retirement of the baby boom, the largest increases in Social Security costs relative to income are projected to occur between 2010 and 2035. Social Security’s costs will then grow more slowly but still continue thereafter to increase as a share of taxable payroll for the indefinite future. The baby boom generation represents the leading edge of a projected new population age structure in which those over 65 are an ever growing share of the total population due to the continuation of relatively low fertility rates and lengthening life expectancy."
So much for a vanishing liability.
Foj -- please link or post some back-up to your arguments. |
Bill P
Citizen
Username: Mrincredible
Post Number: 138
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Of course if you look down my street at the numbers of kids popping up left and right maybe this won't be a problem. If they can all find jobs when they grow up.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3293
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
They can get a job working to keep Social Security afloat. Currently, I pay taxes for a living, and I think there's a strong demand for that going forward. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 534
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
quote:I pay taxes for a living
Now that's a job that really sucks. No wonder you're cranky. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 611
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
"Progressive Indexing" is starting to gain steam.
Increases for lowest third incomes indexed to wages , while top 2/3 indexed to inflation. This will deal directly with the solvency issue.
This comes from the commission the President put together. All ideas are on the table. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
CJC said--
"I've looked at both CBO and SSA testimonies and their accompanying graphs, and I don't see "outlays" line plunging suddenly with the death of the Boomers"
Ok--sure---THen you missed this one.
GO here:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6068/02-03-SocialSecurity.pdf
This is the same link you left for me apparently you didnt get to page 5 (PDF).
Figure one.
GRaph shows outlays as share of GDP--under CURRENT LAW----
dropping from about 6.5% to 5%.
In a matter of maybe 2 to 3 years. Just as I described, that is the last of the BOOMERS--born in 1957 to 1960---PAssing away.
This part of the graph is nearly identical to the birth rate increase, and then decrease of the late 1940's to the late 1950's. This part of the population is known as the Baby BOomers.
And as I said earlier once the BOomers are dead outlays go down. you said that no such drop occurs. ANd then you give this forum the link that indeed states that Outlays DO DROP.
AS I Said.
Thanks CJC for providing me with the link I needed to make MY POINT.
Heres an interesting GIF-- Showing the switch in Revenue generation between Corporate taxes and SS taxes.
Considering that SS taxes cut off about 88k/annum.
SS tax is not a flat tax.
ANd considering that in the 1950's the top personal tax rate was 86% maybe there is a pattern here.
HI taxes=Stong middle class, USA the manufacturing center of the world, Unions at the zenith of their power.
Unfortunatly Republicans and Democrats made this downward Spiral possible. They did it together.
http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/49xx/doc4916/491611.gif
It would be interesting to see if G. Bush would consider not raiding the SS trust fund to the tune of some 175 billion dollars, in the coming fiscal year.
Seems to me that would clench any debate about solvency--it would put SS into a surplus situation for --well 100 years or maybe more.
MAybe forever. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 45
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
CJC said-
"Foj -- please link or post some back-up to your arguments. "
So I did. And can you do the same for me?
Please. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3344
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Foj -- looking at Figure 1, the outlays do drop to the levels of SS revenue but the CBO report states by law they won't have enough money coming into the system or remaining in the cashing in of the IOUs to pay promised benefits. So, by law, outlays have to go down to the tune of approximately 20% per recipient because the money isn't there.
The other graph (Figure 2) shows benefits/outlays as promised in relation to the GDP going up and the revenue line trending down. At no point in that graph going past 2105 do outlays decrease, nor to revenues push even or past the outlays line indicating promises can be met.
I don't get how you think there's not a funding problem, unless you go along with a 20% cut in benefits and then hopefully the passing of the boomers allows benefits to go up or resume their previous level?
Unless I'm completely reading these graphs wrong, which wouldn't surprise me. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 46
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Under Current law--thats the give away--Thats the graph that shows what COULD happen if we do nothing----The caption states that the revenues counted do not include
""interest credited to the SS trust funds""
By the way-thats the caption for Fig 1--page 5-pdf
Thats a huge caveat friends, they didnt count the interest------- interest on what?
IIRC: interest on 1.8 trillion.
BOomers die--outlays goes down--
aint no rocket science --dont need no PHD.
If 1.8% growth in the GDP, raise's enuff SS revenue to have 100% outlays untill 2042.
ANd IF 2.6% growth raise's MORE REVENUE
SO that 100% outlays are possible untill 2052.
Then it would rational and logical to think that improved growth leads to ------
improved revenue figures------
And since the US averages 3.5% growth---over 100 years
Why would anyone base projections on 1.8% growth--------- ?
That seems suicidal to me. If the US economy is that freakin horrible- that we average 1.8% growth for the next 38 years---we are talking major depression here.
We are talking about a major fundamental breakdown of all economic institutions as we know them today.
General Motors
The US Dollar
etc.
One should consider that the dot com bust of the late 1990's saw nearly the same breadth and depth as the downturn of 1929. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
How could responsible folk not count interest on 1.8 trillion dollars?
And we are esupposed to have a national debate based numbers that Lie?
Whats a 30 T-bill right now about what 4.4%
You gotta be kidding me -- the more I thought about it-- the more perverse it seems. Didnt count the interest on 1.8 trillion
WTF
The US ecomomy has averaged 3.5 % growth for the last 100 years ----givew a GDed study that works off of that projc=tion
Why is our time being wasted talking about a projection based on 1.8% growth for the next 38 years.
Whay possible good does that do for this country?
If we really have 1.8% growth--average over the next 38 years. DO ya thikn we 'ill talking about our short changed SS checks.
Aint going be no checks---no banks--nutin |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page