The bestest US healthcare of all times

[The Mad Monk]

More young low wage workers provides the grunt labor that makes businesses profitable. If they all die by age 65, they will have spent a lifetime paying into the system, but dying before the system pays them back.

You realize that was the original Social Security plan, right?

[-Jrabbit]

It worked pretty well, too. Until Saint Reagan claimed he was "saving" it with a new payroll tax - none of which went to Social Security. The working class got taxed, but it all went to the general revenue fund, not to Social Security.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.

Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Dinner]

My fear with this Senate bill is that it will be like the House bill where everyone said it was dead until suddenly it wasn't and then it was passed in a day.

[giblets]

It worked pretty well, too. Until Saint Reagan claimed he was "saving" it with a new payroll tax - none of which went to Social Security. The working class got taxed, but it all went to the general revenue fund, not to Social Security.



This is why we can't have nice things.

I'm pretty sure they invested the payroll tax revenues in government bonds, the alternatives would be to buy privately owned assets like stocks or just collect a huge pile of cash. What are you quoting from?

[-Jrabbit]

The point is, it went to the general revenue fund, not to Social Security, which is how it was sold to the Congress (where there was bipartisan support) and the public. It should also be pointed out that the 1983 payroll tax increase (which largely negated Reagan's prior tax cuts) was most likely the brainchild of Alan Greenspan, who was later rewarded with the post of Federal Reserve chair. Not sure if I can find the exact website I quoted, but there are numerous articles on this topic. Here are a few:

Washington Post, 1991

Perhaps a more poignant question is whether the federal government has the right to borrow taxpayer money specifically intended for the Social Security trust fund to pay for deficit spending.

Our economy needs a shot in the arm. While taxpayers and small business are burdened by higher payroll taxes, the federal government is running a large and expanding Social Security surplus and spending the money as if it were general revenue. Social Security surpluses are projected to be $74 billion in this fiscal year, $83 billion in 1992, $126 billion by 1995 and more than $225 billion in the year 2000.

This expansion glut in revenue is continuing at a rate of more than $1 billion per week and is being manipulated by many in Congress and by the administration to help finance federal programs other than Social Security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.880e8a2a983a

Here are some others:

https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/...ecurity-heist/

https://www.sott.net/article/232087-...ion-Surplus-Go

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill.../#1318fcec4947

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/ro...ecurity-heist/

https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2...ity-trust-fund

[giblets]

Social security is basically lending the money to the government at interest. The alternatives are either investing in the private sector or just sitting on the money.

[Jon Miller]

It is actually a bet in the growth of the country.

Which was true 60 years ago but not so much true today.

I like group annuities where the final member of the group gets the remaining assets when everyone else has died.

JM

[pchang]

It is a bet on a certain percentage of growth. If we ratchet down the numbers for 2.5% growth, it will be just fine. I think the greatest likelihood is that we will continue merrily along until the money runs out. Then, benefits will be cut across the board to the currently sustainable level (about 75% of promised levels).

[rah]

Or just remove the income cap on SS taxes.

[-Jrabbit]

But... but that would hurt job creators, you commie!

[pchang]

Despite the fact that Kid has never reached the cap, he will defend to the death my ability to stop paying SS tax sometime in April of every year.

[rah]

Kid probably never realized there was a cap.

If you stop in April, you're a better producer than I am.

[Ben Kenobi]

There's a good chart showing the deterioration of Obamacare throughout the US. In many states they had competitive markets prior now they are reduced to just a few providers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-26/obamacare-crushing-middle-class

[Ben Kenobi]

Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Alaska all have only one provider. Tennessee, Kentucky, Utah, Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and West Virginia already have more than half the state with a single carrier. That's 14 states. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia have deteriorated to the point where most of the state doesn't have a healthy competitive system. That's 19 states. SD, IA, IL, CT, RI and VT and HI all have most, or almost all of the state with just 2 providers.

Only Oregon, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Nebraska, Arkansas, Ohio, Indiana, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Maine have healthy systems. Just 14 states.

[Ming]

So is this your argument for the current Repub plan?
Are you pro or against the new plan?