New SSA Retirement Estimator

Chapdog said:
thats a start but i want 100% of that reduced benefit back from taxes. not just a write off.

If they raise the age to collect by a year then i will find a way to keep 20,244 (1,687.00x12) more of my tax bill and not lose a wink of sleep over it or have any karma.

Nobody likes someone or some business who fucks you over.
Click to expand...
I hear ya!

I went through my new SSITrogulator, and the result showed worse than $0.
 
uscitizen said:
It is not so much a funding problem as the idiots spent the 2+ trillion surplus. Now they will have to begin funding the projected shortfall from general funds in a few years. that will hurt.
I think it has been part of the Republican plan all along to help cut social programs.
Click to expand...
Republican plan?

You may want to do a little research and find out whose brilliance came up with the little piece of legislation that makes it mandatory that surplus FICA funds be "invested" in U.S. treasury bills, effectively transferring the surplus to the general fund. Their party labels did not include the letter "R".

And do you need to be reminded which administration took advantage of the mandatory use of surplus FICA in the general fund to claim a "balanced" budget?

The republicans have been no better in treating SSI surplus like an extra source of general revenue. But they have been no worse either.

That is why I pushed so hard for Gore - I liked his "lock box" ideas, even while the media made fun of it.
 
As figuring it into balancing the budget ? Link please. I may be wrong. I have been a time or two before.

Actually the spending of the surplus started pretty much with the inceptions of SS.
I am speaking of using it to offest defecit spending. ie cooking the books.
 
uscitizen said:
As figuring it into balancing the budget ? Link please. I may be wrong. I have been a time or two before.

Actually the spending of the surplus started pretty much with the inceptions of SS.
I am speaking of using it to offest defecit spending. ie cooking the books.
Click to expand...

It was brought "On budget" in 1968 with the effect of lower Johnson's budget deficit. The SSA itself said so.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

At the onset, the SS funds collected were credited to SS accounts per individual.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
It was brought "On budget" in 1968 with the effect of lower Johnson's budget deficit. The SSA itself said so.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

At the onset, the SS funds collected were credited to SS accounts per individual.
Click to expand...

Yepper, but you should have read a bit farther in the link you provided.

"Off-Budget" Again-

In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken "off-budget" starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission's report argued: "The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget." (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.

The actual form of the 1983 change was somewhat complex. It provided:

1) That the Social Security and Medicare trust funds (and the income and outgo to these funds) be treated as separate budget functions, starting with the 1985 fiscal year and ending with fiscal year 1992.

2) For the initial budget year after enactment (FY 1984) the Congress would be bound to use the new procedures but the executive branch would not (because the FY 1984 President's budget had already been submitted to Congress under the old rules).

3) Starting with fiscal year 1993, Social Security and the Medicare Part A trust funds were not only off-budget, but were exempted from any general budget reductions that might otherwise apply to the entire federal budget (such as an across-the-board cut). The Part B Medicare trust fund, while also to be shown as a separate budget function, was not protected from general budget limitations.

Thus, in this rather complicated fashion, the Social Security program was again off-budget by FY 1985. Perhaps the more important date here, however, was the 1993 date because that date exempted the Social Security program from the potential of generalized budget-cuts.

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings-

The next important change in Social Security's budget treatment came in 1985 with the passage that year of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This law--informally known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, or GRH, after its three principal Senate sponsors: Senators Phil Gramm of Texas, ****** Rudman of New Hampshire, and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--pushed forward from 1993 to 1986 the date by which the Social Security program would be made immune from generalized budget reductions. However, GRH also mandated that the Trust Funds be included in the budget for the purpose of determining if the total budget exceeded the deficit targets in the law. This provision was to be in effect for the entire time that GRH was in effect, which turned out to be 1986-1993.

The import of this provision was that when the federal budget exceeded the Gramm-Rudman targets, automatic across-the-board sequestration of spending kicked in. So including Social Security in the triggering calculations made the sequestration less likely (since the Trust Funds were running surpluses after 1983). So while the Social Security program was off-budget, and immune from sequestration or other generalized budget cuts, its surpluses were still being used to reduce the size of the budget deficit.

From your link.
 
Do you guys ask for a refund from your inssurance companies because you never got in an accident or had your house blown away by a tornado?

The insurance Co pockets profit from you premium and gives the CEOs big salaries and seweet retirement deals yet you dont seem to harp on them?
 
Yes, I did read the rest of the link before posting it. That does not dismiss the point that the first use of the SS surplus to balance the budget was LBJ 1968. And the SS surplus stayed ON budget until 1983 when Reagan pushed it OFF budget again.
 
Last edited:
And then it got pushed back on for a while by Reagan and phil Grahm for purposes of offsetting the defecit.

We were both correct and wrong. But you are still spinning right.
 
But all the rich people who were used by UBS when they sheltered their money from taxes illegally will for sure be seen as innocent.
 
uscitizen said:
And then it got pushed back on for a while by Reagan and phil Grahm for purposes of offsetting the defecit.

We were both correct and wrong. But you are still spinning right.
Click to expand...

Again, BS! You said (exact quote) "I believe Reagan first used the SS surplus to balance the budget though." You have been shown to be incorrect by no less a source than the SSA itself.

Who's spinning here? 'T ain't me, McGee!
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Again, BS! You said (exact quote) "I believe Reagan first used the SS surplus to balance the budget though." You have been shown to be incorrect by no less a source than the SSA itself.

Who's spinning here? 'T ain't me, McGee!
Click to expand...
It's called "crawfishing", he's the master at it, shoot he even coined the phrase.

He's also very good at accusing others of it when he thinks it will get him somewhere.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Again, BS! You said (exact quote) "I believe Reagan first used the SS surplus to balance the budget though." You have been shown to be incorrect by no less a source than the SSA itself.

Who's spinning here? 'T ain't me, McGee!
Click to expand...

I said I was wrong didn't I ?

but you were also wrong.
 
No, I am not. I answered the exact question and made no further claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top