Inflation.

I am not disputing that, however, morally, if I MUST have money taken from me, it is either a) theft, or B) a tax, or c) a fine or penalty for malfeasance. I do not think it is wrong to think it is "my money", since it is "my money" that they are taking, under the guise of a retirement plan. It would seem part of the smoke and mirrors, and typical government self justification, to say it is some mystical tithe that every American must give for the common good, so they can redistribute it to anyone they please. That does not mean I have to approve or even like it.

Statistics don't lie. People lie by misapplying said statistics.

Statists, however, lie like they are overstocked on lie and they are going out of style.

Labor participation is considered a rate, whereas the revenue is a total. Thus it is apples and oranges.

To consider a different scenario you can have the lowest rate of murders in 50 years but the highest amount of murders. If 10% of 1000 people commit murder in a given year there will be 10 murders. But if, decades later, there are a million people but the rate is 1% you will have both a lower rate and a higher incidence.

In addition the that the labor participation rate is not the number of taxpayers. We have corporations, tariffs, etc. which flummox further any such apples <-> oranges comparison. If we turn to the murder example, the rate among citizens has shrunk, but there are non-citizens visiting the population and committing murder. Thus the population goes down but the incidence goes up.

To confound such an attempt yet again, the rate doesn't take into account the value of each taxpayer. Let us go back to the murder example. In the base period 10% of the population commits a single murder. In our comparison period 5% of the population commits murder, but they do it thrice instead of once. Your rate has gone down but the incidence has gone up - even if the total population doesn't change.

Clear as mud?

Basically the comparison is part of a pattern of intellectualism in that broad statistics, often incomparable, are taken as having more value than the people the statistics purport to represent.

If torture is illegal and statistics were declared people our incarceration rate AND incidence would go up. And it would be "disproportionately" the intellectuals being incarcerated.

The Social Security of FDR and the Social Security of LBJ are two completely difference animals. SS under LBJ was resurrected and expanded to become the monster it is now.

That's not to excuse FDR, only to point out that the SS we deal with now is not a product of the 1930's, but rather the "Great Society" programs of the 70's.

They won't count you unless you are either applying for unemployment benefits or registered with the Unemployment Office. The official figures have been under-reported since Clinton changed who was going to get counted in those figures in order to boost his economic appeal. No president since has set them right.

Yes...and they get a direct benefit from Soc sec, and, medicare, in fact these are more like insurance programs. When we talk about taxes we are talking about income taxes....the bottom 50% of earners pay almost nothing. I am sure that the collectivists among us would love for Soc sec and medicaid to be levied in a similar fashion to income tax but all that would do is further polarize the nation of the payers and the non payers.

I am getting close to SS age, but I am not counting on it.

Jan

That is one of those gov't lies that is believed. Most lower and middle class workers fill out both W4 & Soc Security paperwork volunteering their 'earned income' [labor from personal work] as taxable by IRS code.
With that every one of them pay approximately $4,800.00 per year minimum in taxes; this is the Soc Security TAX, couples pay $9,600.00 per year. That all counts in tax income for the gov't. Many in the Upper Class and several middle class as well as the majority of Teachers, Fire and Police understand the difference between 'earned & unearned income' and they do not pay taxes on their 'earned income' or at least for the middle class, Teacher, Fire & Police no Soc Security TAXES.

1) Tax cuts were removed
2) Death Tax came back
3) IRS removed [held up] non-profit status for 1000's of Conservative organizations
4) ObamaCare penalties started
5) IRS stats as w/ any stat can lie

Disputes it all you want. The Supreme Court ruled it was merely a tax from the very beginning when its constitutionality was challenged. If it had not been merely a tax then they would have found it unconstitutional.

In Helvering v Davis, SCOTUS upheld the lower court's decision that SS was a tax and as long as it was spent for the general benefit rather than a local purpose, it was constitutional.

All of the rest - how it can be spent, loaned, how much you've "earned", etc - is all smoke and mirrors and so much BS but it obviously does its intended job of tricking people like you and the whole "but we paid into it" crowd. It's merely another income tax. The government can and does spend it however it wants and, with a waive of a pen can "owe" you nothing.

Indeed, needs to be rule 1 when dealing with them.

Jan, I don't know either, it was what they reported. I think the real point was they keep playing with money like it is nothing at all. It's like the SS thing, I bet most people notice that they have no contractual agreement with you, so if they default, too bad, but boy they will continue to take it. And most people do not realize their employer pays 50% of it added to yours so the real rate is about 16%.

And it is not even at full power until 2017. Thats what all the party loyalists will get when they find out being a Dumbocrap does not exempt them from the money demand for this boondoggle.

I do not know how to factor in the inflation cause by printing, they have muddies the "money supply" up to the point you can not make heads or tails of it. That is the great thing of hard currency, it is finite and they cannot make more. But it is hard for them to manipulate so, they went to fiat currency. Now we have Federal reserve notes. Note you cannot exchange a federal reserve note for anything valuable, that is why it is always a good thing to have some gold and silver around for when the balloon goes up. IMHO.

Indeed so.

xthinker, I would dispute that:


When Social Security's sources of income exceed its expenses, the resultant surpluses must be loaned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. By law, the Treasury must pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest.[92] [93] [94]

The money owed by the Treasury to the Social Security program is referred to as the "Social Security Trust Fund," and at the close of 2013, it had a balance of $2.8 trillion.[95]

This $2.8 trillion debt that the Treasury owes to Social Security amounts to $8,885 for every person living in the U.S. or $22,574 for every household in the U.S.[96] (Facts about the ability of the Treasury to service this debt are detailed below in the section entitled Impact on National Debt.)

From 1985 through 2009, Social Security's dedicated taxes exceeded its expenses. In 2010, this situation reversed, and expenses exceeded dedicated taxes.[97] This state of affairs continued through 2013 and is projected to continue every year into the foreseeable future.[98]

Despite the interest payments that Social Security receives on the Trust Fund, the Trust Fund began declining in value in 2011, which is eight years earlier than the Social Security Administration projected in 2011, and 10 years earlier than what it projected in 2010.[99] [100] [101] (As explained in the Introductory Notes, all future dollar figures are indexed for inflation. If inflation is not considered, the Trust Fund is projected to begin declining in 2020.[102])

The Social Security Trust Fund continued declining in 2012 and 2013, and this state of affairs is projected to continue until the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2033.[103]

After 2033, Social Security is projected to run deficits every year into the foreseeable future.[107] To cover these deficits, it is projected that payroll taxes would need to be increased by 31% starting in 2033, rising to a 40% increase by 2088.[108] These shortfalls could also be covered by reducing benefits by 23% starting in 2033, rising to a 27% reduction by 2088.[109]

There are several other ways to quantify Social Security's projected deficits. The measure commonly cited by the Social Administration[110] and the press[111] involves calculating how much money must be immediately added to the Trust Fund so that the principle and interest would cover projected shortfalls for the next 75 years. This is referred to as the "75-year open group unfunded obligation," and it currently amounts to $10.6 trillion.[112] [113] This is equivalent to 12 times the total income for Social Security in 2013 or an additional $64,943 from every person who paid Social Security payroll taxes in 2013.[114] [115]

They took (that's the "loan" part) the excess from the fund, and did not put it back. Now all they talk about is how much they will have to steal to keep the morass going. Note the tax rate will have to go to 40%!!!!

Of interest, somehow, when the program collects more that it spends, by law it is loaned to the govt, and replaced with bonds. I do not consider that good management, in that it concludes such bonds will be paid. However, they seem to think that is ok, but it just becomes part of the debt. In fact, the correct thing would be to lower the rate if that is so, so income equals out go. Now we just make additional tax payments to the govt to waste at will:

The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government.[216]

When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is loan it to the U.S. government.[217] [218]

The money that the federal government owes to the Social Security program is held in the form of securities issued by the United States Treasury. These securities are analogous to U.S. savings bonds, except that they can be redeemed before maturity without suffering a loss or enjoying a gain due to market forces. These securities cannot be purchased by the general public.[219]

Bonds that represent the debt that the U.S. government owes to Social Security are located in a file cabinet at the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia. Below is a photo of President George W. Bush inspecting the documents along with Susan Chapman of the Office of Public Debt Accounting.[220] [221]

When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government is obligated by law to pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest. This money becomes a part of the national debt.[222] [223]

The U.S. Treasury Department publishes a "Monthly Statement of the Public Debt" that details the components of the national debt, which includes the amounts owed to the Social Security program.[224]

In 2013, the U.S. government paid an effective annual interest rate of 3.8% on the debt that it owed to the Social Security Trust Fund.[225]

The U.S. government divides the national debt into two categories:

Money that it owes to federal entities such as the Social Security program and federal employee retirement funds.
Money that it owes to non-federal entities such as individuals who have purchased U.S. savings bonds.[226] [227]

The federal law that governs the repayment of the national debt draws no distinction between the debt owed to federal and non-federal entities. Both must be repaid with interest.[228]

Here is some more SS fun:

Popular Perceptions:
Perception about Social Security benefits:
I am entitled to the money. It's my money. I've saved it.[190] [191]

All taxes that have been paid into the Social Security system since its inception have already been (1) spent to pay for benefits, (2) spent to fund the administrative overhead of the program, or (3) loaned to the federal government.[192] [193] [194] [195]

The website of United States Social Security Administration states:
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. … Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. … Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn….[196]

In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.[197]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecuri...

I keep reminding the congressional representatives of AZ. They have been in Washingto to long to notice that many of the rural residents don't have jobs.Many of the businesses who advertise job opennings don't send any replys back to those who haven't been selected. Employment prospects is really poor in this state.

If the government actually did collect $3.25 trillion from us, each citizens share would have been $1,000,000. Perhaps they are counting the money that they print.
The government lies.