I'm confused. There are people saying they have paid for their Social Security benefits over their

[RB TexLa]

lifetime. But every time there is discussion about the childfree on here, we are told "my children are going to have to pay for your Social Security!"

Well, which is it?

[MichiganVote]

1. Both.

[tabatha]

2. Reagan changed SS

so that boomers were paying for both their own and current retirees.

[Lint Head]

3. Not only has Ray-Gun-Nomics damaged Social Security,

now our SS numbers are used as an ID which was forbidden in the original SS law. Pricks will be pricks.

[palm_to_forehead]

4. Ponzi schemes always seem confusing when you look at the closely.

[Codeine]

5. Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is utter right-wing bullshit and filth.

You're in the wrong place.

[RB TexLa]

6. It's not SS that is confusing, it's the people who want to run their smartass mouths about it.

[MichiganVote]

8. Got that right.

[madokie]

16. Damn right on that

[MichiganVote]

7. Then you should reject it when its your turn.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. Newt is that you?

[WhollyHeretic]

10. How did you enjoy Atlas Shrugged Part 1?

[Forkboy]

13. Too many big words. He didn't make it past the forward.

[TBF]

11. ...

Enjoy your stay.

:patriot:

[Enthusiast]

17. Right wing talking points alarm!

Generally speaking we don't like to hear right wing talking points. You know, since we already read and hear these talking points on every fucking information source on earth.

[Curmudgeoness]

12. Social Security---also known as FICA.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act. And it works the same way as any insurance would. Your "premiums" are used to pay other people's losses, until you have a loss. Then your loss is covered. Well, it is paid all our life. And it also is the children of today who will pay for our Social Security.

[Drew Richards]

14. Social Security Changes by Greenspan we pay for both...

Prior to being appointed to the Federal Reserve, Ronald Reagan hired Alan Greenspan to chair the National Commission on Social Security Reform, to deal with an alleged looming shortfall in the fund.

Greenspan's solution was to hike Social Security tax rates from 9.35% in 1981 up to 15.3% by 1990 and build up a financial surplus that could be used to pay Baby Boomers their social security checks 30 years down the road.

You know...as in Today. Here we are 30 years later and the money that was supposed to have been accrued is allegedly...not residing in the fund? (unverified)

According to the last GAO report I have read SS is 100% solvent up to the year 2027 at which time it will only be 75% solvent unless we increase our estimated GNP by more than the conservative 1%. It seems to me from all I have read, SS is either in awesome shape and Republicans just want to loot the fund or it is in unsustainable shape and Republicans want to loot the fund :P

Either the money is there and we are being lied to, it has been dipped into in direct violation of the law, or it is not present in the fund, if it is not...where the heck did it go?

And before some of you go there, no I have not attempted to download all the public GAO reports on SS. I am not an investigative journalist, I am just asking a question to the Underground.

[Igel]

15. It's not all that complicated.

Yes,the FICA tax that we pay goes for current retirees. For a while the FICA tax exceeded benefits paid out; that money was, in principle saved.

So we're paying for the current beneficiaries. To some extent, over the last 25 years or so we paid a bit extra. Just a bit. Not even 50% more than we would receive.

As for its current status, the money is held in special issue treasury notes. The SSA isn't allowed to have huge surpluses in its accounts. If you think those trillions are "there" because there are treasury notes that can be redeemed, then SS is solvent for another 30+ years. If you think the money needed to allow the SSA to redeem those treasury notes will have to come from somewhere--general revenues, being parcelled out as debt in regular-issue T-bills--then we have a problem. A rather serious one.

Most commentators keep saying that currently SS isn't responsible for any of the current deficit so there's no problem. That's rather like saying that if we reduced all taxes on the rich next year to 0%, well, that wouldn't be responsible for any of the current deficit so it's not a problem. It's disengenuous.

The "looting" that would occur by reducing benefits but not the tax rate is imaginary. The money was borrowed years ago; it was spent years ago. Reducing benefits would come as a result of saying that the money can't be repaid, so lets jigger the law to make that okay.