[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

rec.music.classical.guitar

OT: Social Security Funding

:)

8/21/2011 1:02:00 AM

Dear Friends,

For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
following information:

DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
to date.

Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because

1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
taxing

Discuss.
24 Answers

doug

8/21/2011 1:42:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 6:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> following information:
>
> DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> to date.
>
> Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> taxing
>
> Discuss.

the democrats promise it to run forever in spite of it running out of
money, and they will do this by 2 and 3

The facts are that it cannot go on like this forever, it will run out
of money. I remember when there were 7 people paying into social
security for 1 recipient now there is 3 to 1 and unless drastic
changes are made it will go to 2 to 1 with the advances in medical
science. Hell I'm still alive because of science. Stents kept me
from a heart attack, a operation on my artery in my neck to remove fat
buildup kept me from a stroke, and heart surgery last summer replaced
a valve and a couple of bypasses. I'm not going to live to be 100 and
don't think I want to but I will continue to get my 1,600 a month
for a few more years anyway. The facts are the age limits were put
into effect in the 1930's and its time to change them and increase
them. Not that many people lived to 65 back then now most do baring
an accident.

edspyhill01

8/21/2011 2:12:00 AM

0


"Tommy Grand" <howardj911@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:52b17a8e-2318-43a3-a5bb-6f32ada40de0@g9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Friends,
>
> For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> following information:
>
> DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> to date.
>
> Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> taxing
>
> Discuss.

Add two more agenda items:

How much has the U.S. government borrowed from the Social Security fund?

Will they try to get out of paying it back?


I found this at
http://newsburglar.com/2009/04/07/social-security-trust-fun...
The problem is if/when the social Security fund must call it the IOUs the
government owes to Social Security and the U.S. citizens. THIS is what is
driving republicans and tea potters to try to do away with Social Security;
so the government can default on those IOWs/loans from the U.S. taxpayers'
Social Security.


_Drawing Down on the Trust Fund

If no changes are made to system, around 2017 Social Security payments will
begin to exceed Payroll tax receipts. Even if changes are made, at some
point in the next few decades, payments will exceed receipts.

At that point, the Trust Fund will begin redeeming the special Treasuries.
In order to pay these Treasuries back, the U.S. government will either have
to raise income taxes or (more likely) borrow additional amounts, i.e., real
Treasuries.

Under the current rules, and depending upon future economic growth, the
Social Security Trust Fund is projected to be depleted sometime between 2042
and 2052. Once the Trust Fund is depleted, we get to the Unfunded (i.e.
$13.6 Trillion) part of our Social Security future.

The only difference between what occurs before the Trust Fund is depleted
and after the Trust Fund is depleted is that there are no Special Treasuries
to redeem before Social Security payments are made.

That last sentence may seem like hyperbole but its really not. It is the
reason why many people say that the OASDI Trust Fund doesn't exist. The
OASDI Trust Fund is, in many ways, just an accounting of the relative
relationship between Social Security payments and Social Security tax
receipts._

himmelhoch@verizon.net

8/21/2011 2:14:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 9:42 pm, doug <hogrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 6:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Friends,
>
> > For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> > following information:
>
> > DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> > should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> > are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> > to date.
>
> > Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> > 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> > 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> > 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> > taxing
>
> > Discuss.
>
> the democrats promise it to run forever in spite of it running out of
> money, and they will do this by 2 and 3
>
> The facts are that it cannot go on like this forever, it will run out
> of money.  I remember when there were 7 people paying into social
> security for 1 recipient now there is 3 to 1 and unless drastic
> changes are made it will go to 2 to 1 with the advances in medical
> science.   Hell I'm still alive because of science.  Stents kept me
> from a heart attack, a operation on my artery in my neck to remove fat
> buildup kept me from a stroke, and heart surgery last summer replaced
> a valve and a couple of bypasses.  I'm not going to live to be 100 and
> don't think I want to but  I will continue to get my 1,600  a month
> for a  few more years anyway.  The facts are the age limits were put
> into effect in the 1930's and its time to change them and increase
> them.  Not that many people lived to 65 back then  now most do baring
> an accident.

According to these websites, social security with no changes will pay
full benefits until 2037 or 2041, depending on which one you read.
Then one of the standard fixes will be able to make the program
continue, I personally favor raising the maximum income that must pay
in the full contribution.

http://www.epi.org/publications/en...

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/CreateaPlan/12-fixes-for-social-sec...

S

edspyhill01

8/21/2011 2:19:00 AM

0


"doug" <hogrider7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:93a2988f-edbe-4207-acb9-f55832f7c987@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 6:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> following information:
>
> DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> to date.
>
> Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> taxing
>
> Discuss.

the democrats promise it to run forever in spite of it running out of
money, and they will do this by 2 and 3

The facts are that it cannot go on like this forever, it will run out
of money. I remember when there were 7 people paying into social
security for 1 recipient now there is 3 to 1 and unless drastic
changes are made it will go to 2 to 1 with the advances in medical
science. Hell I'm still alive because of science. Stents kept me
from a heart attack, a operation on my artery in my neck to remove fat
buildup kept me from a stroke, and heart surgery last summer replaced
a valve and a couple of bypasses. I'm not going to live to be 100 and
don't think I want to but I will continue to get my 1,600 a month
for a few more years anyway. The facts are the age limits were put
into effect in the 1930's and its time to change them and increase
them. Not that many people lived to 65 back then now most do baring
an accident.

==============================================================

Raise the FICA limit from the current level of $106,000 to $250,000. The
age for retirement HAS been changed. To get full payments I must retire at
66. There are people with higher retirement ages. Yes, if a person retires
earlier they get less, but they still collect.

We need a class action law suit to stop the government from putting Social
Security money into the general fund and force them to pay back the money
borrowed/owed.

Wollybird

8/21/2011 3:16:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 9:13 pm, "himmelh...@verizon.net" <himmelh...@verizon.net>
wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:42 pm, doug <hogrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 6:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear Friends,
>
> > > For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> > > following information:
>
> > > DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> > > should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> > > are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> > > to date.
>
> > > Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> > > 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> > > 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> > > 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> > > taxing
>
> > > Discuss.
>
> > the democrats promise it to run forever in spite of it running out of
> > money, and they will do this by 2 and 3
>
> > The facts are that it cannot go on like this forever, it will run out
> > of money.  I remember when there were 7 people paying into social
> > security for 1 recipient now there is 3 to 1 and unless drastic
> > changes are made it will go to 2 to 1 with the advances in medical
> > science.   Hell I'm still alive because of science.  Stents kept me
> > from a heart attack, a operation on my artery in my neck to remove fat
> > buildup kept me from a stroke, and heart surgery last summer replaced
> > a valve and a couple of bypasses.  I'm not going to live to be 100 and
> > don't think I want to but  I will continue to get my 1,600  a month
> > for a  few more years anyway.  The facts are the age limits were put
> > into effect in the 1930's and its time to change them and increase
> > them.  Not that many people lived to 65 back then  now most do baring
> > an accident.
>
> According to these websites, social security with no changes will pay
> full benefits until 2037 or 2041, depending on which one you read.
> Then one of the standard fixes will be able to make the program
> continue, I personally favor raising the maximum income that must pay
> in the full contribution.
>
> http://www.epi.org/publications/en...
>
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/Cre......
>
> S

I think doug has ss and medicare mixed up.

himmelhoch@verizon.net

8/21/2011 3:54:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 11:16 pm, wollybird <wollyb...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 9:13 pm, "himmelh...@verizon.net" <himmelh...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 20, 9:42 pm, doug <hogrid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 20, 6:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Friends,
>
> > > > For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> > > > following information:
>
> > > > DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> > > > should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> > > > are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> > > > to date.
>
> > > > Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> > > > 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> > > > 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> > > > 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> > > > taxing
>
> > > > Discuss.
>
> > > the democrats promise it to run forever in spite of it running out of
> > > money, and they will do this by 2 and 3
>
> > > The facts are that it cannot go on like this forever, it will run out
> > > of money.  I remember when there were 7 people paying into social
> > > security for 1 recipient now there is 3 to 1 and unless drastic
> > > changes are made it will go to 2 to 1 with the advances in medical
> > > science.   Hell I'm still alive because of science.  Stents kept me
> > > from a heart attack, a operation on my artery in my neck to remove fat
> > > buildup kept me from a stroke, and heart surgery last summer replaced
> > > a valve and a couple of bypasses.  I'm not going to live to be 100 and
> > > don't think I want to but  I will continue to get my 1,600  a month
> > > for a  few more years anyway.  The facts are the age limits were put
> > > into effect in the 1930's and its time to change them and increase
> > > them.  Not that many people lived to 65 back then  now most do baring
> > > an accident.
>
> > According to these websites, social security with no changes will pay
> > full benefits until 2037 or 2041, depending on which one you read.
> > Then one of the standard fixes will be able to make the program
> > continue, I personally favor raising the maximum income that must pay
> > in the full contribution.
>
> >http://www.epi.org/publications/en...
>
> >http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/RetirementandWills/Cre......
>
> > S
>
> I think doug has ss and medicare mixed up.

It seems that a lot of republicans do, too!

S

Andrew Schulman

8/21/2011 4:36:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 9:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> following information...
>
>
Hi Tommy!

You no longer have to write OT for Off Topic threads because they are
no longer Off Topic. Guitar threads are the new Off Topic threads;
what were formerly called Off Topic threads are now On Topic and
therefore no longer need the OT designation.

That being the case, I hope you won't mind if I hijack your thread.

If you wanted to do an arrangement of Beethoven's WoO 43b - Adagio ma
non troppo for Mandolin and Fortepiano, which is in Eb, would you feel
morally justified to do it in E? D?

Would it affect your choice if you found out Beethoven was a Democrat?

Andrew

:)

8/21/2011 5:02:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 11:35 pm, Andrew Schulman <and...@abacaproductions.com>
wrote:
> If you wanted to do an arrangement of Beethoven's WoO 43b - Adagio ma
> non troppo for Mandolin and Fortepiano, which is in Eb, would you feel
> morally justified to do it in E?  D?
>
> Would it affect your choice if you found out Beethoven was a Democrat?

I'd prefer to move it to another key with flats. Eb is one of my all
time favorites; good trombone key.

But consider:

By 2017 the Social Security program will be forced to begin drawing on
investment income to pay benefits, as tax income will not be enough to
cover benefits and expenses.

By 2027 the program will be forced to sell securities to meet demans.

By 2040 it will be bust.

Thoughts?

:)

8/21/2011 5:05:00 AM

0

On Aug 20, 8:02 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> For an upcoming exam I'm compelled to memorize and regurgitate the
> following information:
>
> DEFINITION OF "FULL FUNDING": A situation such that if the program
> should terminate, then the assets already accumulated under the plan
> are sufficient to discharge all liabilities for the benefits accrued
> to date.
>
> Full funding is unnecessary for Social Security because
>
> 1. The program is expected to operate indefinitely
> 2. New entrants are compelled to pay taxes
> 3. Government can always raise additional revenues by borrowing and
> taxing
>
> Discuss.

To bring the program into balance the following would be required:

1. Raise the SS tax rate to 14.42% (it's currently 12.40%)
2. Cut benefits by 13.0%.

Not sure if this is current info, the syllabus material is from 2007.

Andrew Schulman

8/21/2011 5:13:00 AM

0

On Aug 21, 1:01 am, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But consider:
>
> By 2017 the Social Security program will be forced to begin drawing on
> investment income to pay benefits, as tax income will not be enough to
> cover benefits and expenses.
>
> By 2027 the program will be forced to sell securities to meet demans.
>
> By 2040 it will be bust.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
Well, yes actually. This might seem strange but I've always found the
key of Ab to work well on the guitar.

Andrew