SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Gersh Avery who wrote (3309)10/23/2006 10:29:56 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 10087
 
>So there is borrowing, but the income isn't the borrowing, its the various taxes (including the social security tax)<

tax ...

Wasn't that supposed to be a contribution into my account?


I'm talking about what it is, not what it is called or supposed to be.

If it is a tax, then there would be no expectation ownership and/or return.

Expectations can arise in any situation. They may or may not be realistic.


If it is a tax then there would be no need to issue the treasuries in exchange for the money gathered.


The treasuries issued for this purpose are almost meaningless. We have one government not two separate entities that can lend money to each other. Counting the treasuries as an asset is like if I take a $10 bill from my right pocket, put it in my left pocket, put an IOU for $10 in my right pocket, and think of the IOU as a real asset.

The net effect of the "trust fund" for both the government and the social security recipient is nil. Once social security starts to spend more money than it takes in than social security will have to be paid for in part from regular non-social security taxes. Either a certain amount will have to be cut from social security spending or a certain amount will have to be paid from income taxes and other source of federal government income. That certain amount is exactly the same whether or not there is a "trust fund".


Be careful about the use of the words "social security tax."


I was careful. And accurate.



To: Gersh Avery who wrote (3309)10/23/2006 1:40:19 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10087
 
Wasn't that supposed to be a contribution into my account?

It doesn't work that way.

I don't think most seniors know how SS works. I used to spend hours at my father's assisted living facility explaining it. I can't tell you how many people thought that what they were receiving was a disbursement of the money they put in. I quit doing it because the cognitive dissonance was so great and the folks so old that I was afraid of doing someone in. <g>