0:00 WRONG. The Trust Fund is an artificiality. Promised benefits will be paid *IRRESPECTIVE* of the so-called "trust fund." It will be paid from the general fund, with issuance of Treasuries ("printing money") to ensure benefits are paid. PERIOD. The "trust fund" is just an accounting allocation of the total USG balance sheet. AND NOTHING MORE. You didn't "pay into" _anything._ You were just taxed, and there is a distinct, *financially unrelated* benefit payment.
Bill Woo Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
@@peterpan8263 but you left out a key point in your part about "as long as there are workers in America..." You must have meant DOCUMENTED workers in America, because anyone in the system who is only taking from it and not contributing to it is helping to systematically break down the existing system. And I have to then wonder if those who have been claiming that the system is already broken aren't then also the proponents of the breaking the system themselves, by flooding it with UNDOCUMENTED workers, who, by definition, are not paying into the system into which they are demanding entry, and who, be definition of the United States Constitution, are illegal aliens, once in the US, without DOCUMENTATION of their intent while here.
@@peterpan8263 You just don't get it. The "fund" is just an accounting allocation. Ask someone familiar with corporate financial statement preparation what is an "asset allocation." Also ask him or her about "commingling of assets", as the fictititious SSA "fund" is spent at will through the general fund, and funded at will by Treasury issuance (A.K.A. "money printing"). Ask someone who understands high finance, and if they're not a deluded stooge (such as the actuaries who create the numbers in Baltimore), they will verify all of this.
I once calculated how much I would have if I had been allowed to use my SSI payments to my IRA instead. I would have an additional $750,000 in retirement. Social Security is robbing future generations.
@@Quinu12 I agree but I didn't refer to SS as a retirement fund. Only that if I had been able to invest that money into my 401K and Roth IRA it would have doubled what my retirement currently is because I would control those funds. It was an attempt to show young people how much better off they would be without a SS tax.
@@Quinu12 Yep, because unlike the myth people believe that we each have an account with what we paid in. Reality is it ALL just goes into the general fund along with all other tax revenue. You have to know what you paid in. I have aspergers so I had every pay statement I've ever received and I'm so anally OCD I added up everything they took and then used my annual rates of return from my 401K to calculate how much I would have accumulated if it was in my 401K. There is a reason they never show anyone how much they have paid into SS. It would obviously show even unintelligent people how badly the government is fukking them.
All the money I paid into Social Security is gone. It has been spent. So, when I apply for and receive Social Security, I will then be receiving someone else's money. I will be receiving stolen property. Receiving stolen property is a crime to accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft.
No, that's ignorance of finance. I suppose when take out money from your bank account you feel you stole the money from others and the bank stole your money.
David Cisco Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
Peter pan And the costs will continue to increase forever, until 100% of the GDP is used to pay for it. Unless people worth their salt end socialism in America.
So in conclusion social security has 3 trillion IOU's from the US government. So therefore if they spend that money they are spending the government money, which affects the economy. And if the government was broke, (LIKE THE USA ONE IS) then those IOU's are all but worthless. When she was explain it i was SO EXCITED, the idea of a government program that MAKES MONEY instead of just spends it OMG. BUT as always it was too good to be true, and it turned out it was just a ponzi scheme at government level. I guess it makes sense, after all WHEN HAS THE GOVERNMENT EVER MADE MONEY?
rumco Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
@@peterpan8263 yeah but the problem is the more the life expectancy grows and if the retirement age doesn't change, you will need more money to pay for everyone. That amount of money needed to pay for social security doesn't exist in the us government and her argument that social security only spends what it gets in "revenue" or taxes is not valid. Because if the scheme needs to continue to go forward and everyone who is entitled to get a social security can't get one ,then they will have no other choice but to raise taxes sharply (not modestly) which is not gonna go well with the voters or they have to borrow more money and therefore that will contribute to the deficit.
We can guarantee any dollar payout amount, that you desire.. But we Can't guarantee the purchasing power of those dollars.. Alan Greenspan to congress.. Even my employers 401k website has an option to see the monthly payout in " Future Dollars " looks good its about 25%-30% increase in # of Dollars payed out, but bet those dollars will be at least 50% less valuable, if even around by the time I'm eligible to receive..
I like this lady, she is a fighter, has a sharp mind and good sense of humor. And I don't believe for a second that SS is going to survive at the current rate.
The supreme court in 1937 during Helvering vs. Davis explicitly said that payroll taxes are to be collected into the treasury "as any other internal revenue generally". There is no special designation for payroll taxes being for social security. It absolutely contributes to the debt. This was settled in 1937.
@@Meton2526 Yes, they were. “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
Jeremiah Talks Social Security is funded by taxes, I pay as an employee, and my employer matches. It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
Jeremiah Talks The federal government will send another round of aid - $16 billion - to help farmers reeling financially by President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war with China. The Trump administration granted around $62 million in financial assistance to a meatpacking company owned by Brazilian brothers guilty of bribing hundreds of officials in Brazil
Jeremiah Talks The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, some of which went into massive bonuses for bank executives.
Jeremiah Talks Show so it looks like that the federal government has plenty of money, when it comes to subsidies for Big agricultural, or large corporations, and fighting wars for oil companies.But when it comes to the working class, the middle class, the government seems to be broke
The fact that the Treasury bonds accrue interest alone shows that buying Treasury bonds with the funds adds to the deficit. If I borrow $100 from myself, and then have to pay back $110, due to interest, I am in debt to myself that additional $10. If it were dollar for dollar, it wouldn't add to the deficit, but it isn't.
This is the dumbest debate. Arguing over whether a bloated government program is contributing to the deficit or simply overtaxing people. Both are a moot point because the program is failure regardless.
So I am only 6 minutes into this thing. Has this woman even listened to the SSA themselves? They themselves are saying they are going broke. When the fund goes negative, massive changes are going to have to happen.
If you think there's a trust fund, try letting the young choose to opt-out for their own investments. It has always been paid to current retirees by current workers; my grandmother scored by getting paid for several decades despite having contributed for only a couple of years. Why can't an old person who has lived his life and doesn't need special medical care still required to buy Medicare? Because it requires all to pay even if they don't need it. We might all have a retirement plan if so much wasn't forced out of our paychecks. Social security and medicare are 15-20% of your income all your life, so of course you don't have that to invest for your own future, even if you know your future is limited (like if you have terminal cancer, you still pay for a retirement and for healthcare you no longer need).
Home Wall there’s no such thing as being an old person and not needing medical care. Do you think people age and just peacefully die in their sleep? No buddy, after the age of 55 it’s a slow & many times incremental road to death. Unless, you just have a heart attack and die on the spot. But even then, they will try to revive you and bill someone for it.
Whether it's the 1984 debate in Canada or a debate today or someone asking Milton Friedman a question, these people that ask questions can't help themselves from making statements.
SS is a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The old have all the wealth already, the young have little wealth left to transfer. This in lies the problem.
Speaking of accounting fictions, "debt owed to the public" includes debt held by the Fed on which Congress effectively pays no interest and which it may refinance on demand.
Imagine you are saving up half a million dollars in a bank savings account to buy a house. You work for years putting part of your paycheck into your account. Finally, the time comes when you want to take out that money to buy a great house, so you go to your bank to take out the money. You get to the bank and ask for your money bank, but the teller says that they don't have enough money to give you back what you paid into your account. You saved up half a million dollars, but you only get $350,000 since the bank has been using your money to pay back what they promised their earlier customers and are now not getting enough money to pay you back in full. That is Social Security.
CovertBrony Social Security is funded by taxes, I pay as an employee, and my employer matches. It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
Social Security, as people understand it, includes medicare and medicaid, which all operate under the same umbrella. The umbrella of benefits is in far worse shape than part A, which is the base of Social Security. Also, no politician will ever allow Social Security benefits to be cut, including the parts that fall under the social security umbrella. Teresa was speaking of Part A only, which is far more stable than other parts.
Social Security the money is invested. It invested in treasury bonds so anyone buying treasury bonds is buying their own Social Security when time to cash out you have to pay yourself that interest. The ones who owe towards the national debt are the ones who owned the bonds. You can't get much more confusing than this. Yes Social Security can add to the deficit by investing in the bonds because it's those who own the bonds that owe the debt. This is what I got out of this merry go round.
medicare wasn't suppose to use a certain percent of general revenue but they are way over the mark there. congress is one vote away from ignoring from not having it add to the debt or they can just ignore it like they did with medicare.
The U.S. government is nothing like a business firm and it is foolish to compare it to one. The U.S. government is not fiscally constrained in any absolute sense. Insolvency is literally impossible with a sovereign fiat currency. The only real concern is how government spending impacts inflation and, less importantly, the exchange rate. Fear of inflation is generally overblown as evidenced by how low it has remained after years of deficit spending. Social security can never be forced into insolvency irrespective of what happens with the trust fund. What the politicians decide to do with it is another purely political matter.
The difference between a stock and a bond is a stock is at least partially backed by current capital. I guess you could say the same about a government bond, if DC wants to sell off a few national parks to pay back a bond. The only reason a bond is more stable than a stock is the power of taxation, as she admitted. It is no different than any other deficit spending.
I don't see this as a debate. I see someone fooled by a conman and someone else pull the curtain and display who Oz really is. I agree with the male speaker, but when he breathes into the microphone it is so annoying.
@@Alkalite Of course I understand deflation. It is the governments plan and only ability to survive is to inflate the dollar. Every other entity on earth would rather have their money go further, but not a debt ridden central bank funded by the Rothchild's since the 1600's creating money out of thin air and charging governments to borrow it and pay it back with interest. Do you understand how Private Central Banks work?
Lol, 'we can't rebalance the fund because we need 2.8 billion of liquidity.' Lmao, financial wisdom like this is exactly what you'd expect from people advising government
No kidding, in that part she says the gov will pay those special SS bonds just like normal bonds. She might as well have conceded the debate right there.
I was listening to this with some mostly neutral skepticism until it reached the segment where people were asking questions. The SS-benefiting age people voiced some approval of the system as it is, while the working age people asked vaguely cynical questions attacking the premise of the system and were laughed at, ridiculed for their youth and then mostly dismissed. I dislike this culture and its demagogues. I think I'll go join the squirrels in the nearby park and pay my taxes in acorns.
This argument isn't about social security at all. It's about whether US government bonds count as an asset to the person who holds them. And I would argue that they count as much as any other type of debt. Corporate bonds are exactly the same as government bonds; ALL debt is an IOU, and ALL debt creates, prints if you will, money. If you want to discuss credit ratings, that's a different story. There are two ways to look at this. Either social security is separate, and has bought assets backed by the federal government with its surplus, while the federal government owes money it created to pay for an aircraft carrier to social security. Or, if they are combined, the national debt is actually one trust fund less than the headline figure because asset and debt cancel out, and "the depletion of the trust fund" is actually just the government finally incurring that debt after a long delay. The woman was arguing the first, the man was kinda arguing the second, but without that important caveat that the national debt, by his logic, is only $15tn, not $20tn. There is an argument for diversifying the trust funds into private or foreign stocks and bonds. But the debate presented in this video is stupid. Either way, revenue has to be raised or other spending cut so that people do actually get their cheques at 100% not 77% or 0%. Unless you want that, of course.
(correction: I wrote this halfway through the video, and someone did raise the cancelling out thing in the Q&A, and the man did acknowledge it. But far too many people don't.)
Why didn't anyone the governments limited ability to tax combined with social security being politically untouchable? Trust fund runs out, social security taxes go up to maintain benefits. This increase in taxes reduces the federal government's ability to raise revenue, as eventually you hit a point on the laffer curve when higher taxes reduce revenue. If taxes go up 2% to save social security, that 2% could've went to the general fund instead. You're taxing the same people. Even if you consider social security and the federal government separate entities that tax, they both tax the same pool that has limited capacity to be taxed. So at the end of the day, if we assume that benefits won't be cut, rising unfunded liabilities from social security contribute to the debt because those liabilities will have to be paid by future taxes that could've went to the federal government.
Even if she was right I think it is incredibly naive to think that politicians in 2035 won't try and change the law to fund Social Security and include it in the deficit.
where is this 3 trillion dollars....? Is there really an account with this as a fund and not just money going in and directly out from our paychecks to retirees ?
When you conflate an investor who buys T-bills (one person investing in another entity) with the government buying T-bills for itself, you show an utter lack of understanding how investment works. You simply cannot invest in yourself and claim you made interest profits. You can lend $100 to yourself, and pay yourself back $110 later, but only a fool believes they made $10 on their investment. Intra-governmental debt is one thing, but in this case, Social Security borrowed from the Treasury (inter-governmental), but they then give it to people (not the government, unless we just pretend that we people are in fact the government). When a foreign government buys US bonds, that does increase US debt. Or is she pretending that their investment is somehow trans-governmental debt and therefore doesn't exist? How can you claim social security is secure if promised benefits must be cut or people must pay much higher taxes? Both solutions mean it's not secure. Sure, I can "protect" my house buy shooting intruders, but if I have to shoot intruders to protect my house, I'm clearly not secure.
The (income) tax hike required to extend promised SS benefits beyond 2040 (or whatever the projected date for "trust fund" exhaustion is now) was baked into the system from the get go. As Epstein describes here, practically every dollar drawn from the "trust fund" to pay SS benefits is current income tax revenue (or additional "borrowing" or monetary expansion), and the volume of income tax dollars paid to SS beneficiaries will increase steadily until the "trust fund" is exhausted. With no change in law of any kind, on the day before the exhaustion, income tax revenue pays 25% of SS benefits. So what happens the next day? 1. The SSA immediately cuts SS benefits by 25%. If anyone believes this story, I also sell real estate in the Everglades. 2. Congress elects to continue paying the same SS benefits to the same beneficiaries using same income tax revenue it used the day before. By the time this event occurs, the income tax hike has already occurred. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
What do you disagree with? Social Security is the government writing an IOU to itself. Useful for accounting purposes, sure, but that is not an asset. If I run a company and different departments write each other IOUs to keep track of funds, are they creating assets out of thin air? Of course not.
Henry it’s a debate, so the debaters are measured on their persuasion skills. If you make people change their mind about a topic, it means you debated the topic really well. That’s the whole point of a debate competition, the topic is really irrelevant... although it’s more fun to listen to if the subject is interesting.
@@sarahdata3655 yes, but the winner of the debate gets a $2,000 paycheck and the loser gets $1,000. But moving from 5% to 10% will never beat someone that moves 80% to 90% when the loser literally doubled their amount convinced.
Social Security is the best investment America can make! - Bernie Madoff or Sanders @0:00:22 I guess we need to remind congress the definition of a surplus. Perhaps Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet could help on this clarification. @0:03:50 So? What's the recourse if the books don't balance? If the recourse is nothing then they won't balance - ever! @0:05:00 This turned in to stand up comedy in 5 minutes flat! @0:07:40 You know the scene in Dumb and Dumber when the kidnappers open the briefcase and there's a bunch hand written IOUs... Yeah! You mean those "assets?" @0:09:30 That $20 you borrow in the morning will very soon be $10 by lunch time. @0:58:58 That's super easy. Zero and Zero and this way nobody pays for it.
Am I the only one who thinks that the question they're arguing over is both weirdly worded and or irrelevant? The main debate to be had is whether Social Security should be propped up or allowed to die.
The idea that inter-governmental transfers don't affect the economy is factually wrong. While the money stays within the US economy it is being taken from those who might be more productive and given to those who WERE potentially less productive. Therefore SS beneficiaries might receive more than their fair share. Resources are moved intentionally towards those who are more productive i.e. those providing the greatest good for the market/society. When the government interrupts this process they create market distortions and ultimately slow the economy. That is 6.2% of every entrepreneur's and working person's income. The affirmative side does not believe the market is efficient, they just see the country as a single unit, a family, but they forget that the family as a unit acts efficiently like a firm. The family and the firm both allocate resources efficiently, the government does not because of what Hayek called the information problem, which is inherent in government.
54:40 There is a less controversial way to raise money that both parties would agree upon. Stop taxing income of people and companies; tax the stock market 1/10 of one percent and have wealthy people and institutions from all over the world pay our taxes, not working people.
Astonishing that anyone could argue that "intragovernmental debt" doesn't have a net negative effect on the overall debt. That would assume that all debts affect the economy equally, and/or that putting control of the "trust fund" in the hands of the treasury instead of an "external" location like the private stock market doesn't influence overall federal spending and fiscal irresponsibly. OF COURSE, if the government has access to the funds designated by the SSA as a "trust" it will inevitably be less responsible in budgetary concerns than it otherwise would be. Only a statist idiot would argue that such access to your money would not be abused. The example of the family that sets up a trust for their kids perfectly illustrates this, even though Gene wasn't nearly bold enough on that point. He should have made the point that if the parents bought private investments in their children's names rather than issuing IOU's, the assets would be INSULATED from the parents' own "internal" fiscal irresponsibly. But their ability to control the theoretical assets defined by the IOU's are vulnerable to their decisions being corrupted by their access to the assets. The government's control of retirement assets, whether directly or through fictional barriers is the same. Just putting the government in charge of these schemes corrupts the schemes.
The fact that we have to have this debate tells me all I need to know. But this is the first time I've thought Gene may be wrong. I'll have to do my own research. Saying the law makes social security perform a certain way is a poor defense though, so I don't think social security is safe. Most of the government is illegal already. The law doesn't keep us safe.
Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
But you left out a key point in your part about "as long as there are workers in America..." You must have meant DOCUMENTED workers in America, because anyone in the system who is only taking from it and not contributing to it is helping to systematically break down the existing system. And I have to then wonder if those who have been claiming that the system is already broken aren't also the proponents of the breaking of the system themselves, by flooding it with UNDOCUMENTED workers, who, by definition, are not paying into the system into which they are demanding entry, and who, by definition of the United States Constitution, are illegal aliens, once in the US, without DOCUMENTATION of their intent while here.
//Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income.// But how much income? Enough to pay all the promised outlays? That's the problem. Calling something close to 25% deficit a "modest funding gap" is rather alarming, especially in light of all the other problems that will be occurring. The payees to beneficiaries ratio in the late 1950s for Social Security was close to 8 to 1. By 2020, it will be 2 and 1/2 to 1. By the early 2040s, it is supposed to be 2 to 1. Let's hope we automate a whole lot and that those workers displaced get jobs elsewhere. If we add more machine-slaves to the economy to support it, then the pain of 50% of my actual worker-value going to the elderly won't hurt as much.
SPDworks This is tricky, if you’re paying payroll taxes you might be paying Social Security. Noncitizens living in the United States may be eligible for Social Security if they: Are permanent legal residents. Have visas that allow them to work in the United States. Were allowed in the country under the Family Unity or Immediate Relative provisions of U.S. immigration law. The answer is no because you are documenting
Stalemate IB remove the cap on Social Security 132,900.00 . It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
![[ENGSUB] UNPRODUCTIVE DAY ใช้ชีวิต (เปื่อยๆ) ด้วยกัน 1 วัน! | OUROAD CLOSEFRiEND SS2 EP.9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pyYKZ3kra9w/mqdefault.jpg)
0:00 WRONG. The Trust Fund is an artificiality. Promised benefits will be paid *IRRESPECTIVE* of the so-called "trust fund." It will be paid from the general fund, with issuance of Treasuries ("printing money") to ensure benefits are paid. PERIOD.
The "trust fund" is just an accounting allocation of the total USG balance sheet. AND NOTHING MORE.
You didn't "pay into" _anything._ You were just taxed, and there is a distinct, *financially unrelated* benefit payment.
Issuing treasuries is not printing money. They are sold on an open market.
Bill Woo Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
@@peterpan8263 hey! That sounds like a good plan!
@@peterpan8263 but you left out a key point in your part about "as long as there are workers in America..." You must have meant DOCUMENTED workers in America, because anyone in the system who is only taking from it and not contributing to it is helping to systematically break down the existing system. And I have to then wonder if those who have been claiming that the system is already broken aren't then also the proponents of the breaking the system themselves, by flooding it with UNDOCUMENTED workers, who, by definition, are not paying into the system into which they are demanding entry, and who, be definition of the United States Constitution, are illegal aliens, once in the US, without DOCUMENTATION of their intent while here.
@@peterpan8263 You just don't get it. The "fund" is just an accounting allocation. Ask someone familiar with corporate financial statement preparation what is an "asset allocation." Also ask him or her about "commingling of assets", as the fictititious SSA "fund" is spent at will through the general fund, and funded at will by Treasury issuance (A.K.A. "money printing"). Ask someone who understands high finance, and if they're not a deluded stooge (such as the actuaries who create the numbers in Baltimore), they will verify all of this.
I once calculated how much I would have if I had been allowed to use my SSI payments to my IRA instead.
I would have an additional $750,000 in retirement.
Social Security is robbing future generations.
@@Quinu12 I agree but I didn't refer to SS as a retirement fund. Only that if I had been able to invest that money into my 401K and Roth IRA it would have doubled what my retirement currently is because I would control those funds.
It was an attempt to show young people how much better off they would be without a SS tax.
@@Quinu12 Yep, because unlike the myth people believe that we each have an account with what we paid in. Reality is it ALL just goes into the general fund along with all other tax revenue.
You have to know what you paid in. I have aspergers so I had every pay statement I've ever received and I'm so anally OCD I added up everything they took and then used my annual rates of return from my 401K to calculate how much I would have accumulated if it was in my 401K.
There is a reason they never show anyone how much they have paid into SS. It would obviously show even unintelligent people how badly the government is fukking them.
@@Quinu12 Don't know where you are but I'm sure I would enjoy that.
@@Quinu12 They aren't going to give you a value you can actually hold them to.
All the money I paid into Social Security is gone. It has been spent.
So, when I apply for and receive Social Security, I will then be receiving someone else's money. I will be receiving stolen property.
Receiving stolen property is a crime to accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft.
No, that's ignorance of finance. I suppose when take out money from your bank account you feel you stole the money from others and the bank stole your money.
David Cisco Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
Home Wall Except that’s not what it is.
Receiving money from a Ponzi scheme is far more accurate.
Peter pan And the costs will continue to increase forever, until 100% of the GDP is used to pay for it.
Unless people worth their salt end socialism in America.
@@homewall744 Lol no, you willingly put money in to a bank account. Social Security is money taken from you by a gun.
Very nice debating skills she has. Saying "I won the debate" 5 times before it even ended doesn't actually help you win.
designed by law to be solvent, she acts like the government obeys their own laws. . .
So in conclusion social security has 3 trillion IOU's from the US government. So therefore if they spend that money they are spending the government money, which affects the economy. And if the government was broke, (LIKE THE USA ONE IS) then those IOU's are all but worthless. When she was explain it i was SO EXCITED, the idea of a government program that MAKES MONEY instead of just spends it OMG. BUT as always it was too good to be true, and it turned out it was just a ponzi scheme at government level. I guess it makes sense, after all WHEN HAS THE GOVERNMENT EVER MADE MONEY?
I love her talk of government bonds acting like they actually grow and aren't just a guarantee of future tax increases. This shit is wild.
I usually skip these debates because they're too damn long but this one was great. The live voting results are amazing to watch. Great job Reason 💯
Perhaps she's a competitive debater? No one can argue the insanity she argues.
rumco Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
@@peterpan8263 yeah but the problem is the more the life expectancy grows and if the retirement age doesn't change, you will need more money to pay for everyone. That amount of money needed to pay for social security doesn't exist in the us government and her argument that social security only spends what it gets in "revenue" or taxes is not valid. Because if the scheme needs to continue to go forward and everyone who is entitled to get a social security can't get one ,then they will have no other choice but to raise taxes sharply (not modestly) which is not gonna go well with the voters or they have to borrow more money and therefore that will contribute to the deficit.
@@peterpan8263 Peter pan indeed.
@@peterpan8263 Ask Greece about their social security.
Culture War Chronicle Remove the Cap on Social Security taxes I believe it’s $132,900.00
We can guarantee any dollar payout amount, that you desire.. But we Can't guarantee the purchasing power of those dollars.. Alan Greenspan to congress.. Even my employers 401k website has an option to see the monthly payout in " Future Dollars " looks good its about 25%-30% increase in # of Dollars payed out, but bet those dollars will be at least 50% less valuable, if even around by the time I'm eligible to receive..
I like this lady, she is a fighter, has a sharp mind and good sense of humor. And I don't believe for a second that SS is going to survive at the current rate.
You can't taper a Ponzi scheme.
:- [
Aaaaaaaand you can't triple stamp a double stamp!
Social Security is literally a *PONZI!!!*
Then pay back what has been borrowed from it at the predominate interest rates of the years the money was missing.
Looool who? You must believe the dollar comes from a magical dollar tree.
@@danielp28 By a nearby dollar tree near you.
The supreme court in 1937 during Helvering vs. Davis explicitly said that payroll taxes are to be collected into the treasury "as any other internal revenue generally". There is no special designation for payroll taxes being for social security. It absolutely contributes to the debt. This was settled in 1937.
That is not at all what that decision stated.
@@Meton2526 Those were the exact words by the supreme court.
@@qb4428 No it wasn't.
@@Meton2526 Yes, they were.
“The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
@@qb4428 You can keep writing stuff, but without a credible citation to the actual declaration from the supreme court decision it's all meaningless.
"The US government is good for "its" money..." I can't tell if I am being trolled or not.
Wrote my senior capstone on the insolvency of Social Security... The research on it is overwhelmingly demonstrative of its failures.
I would rather have a 7 to 14% raise frankly. We can buy Treasury bonds and bills literally on our phones if we CHOOSE to!! It's an outdated system.
Why did they cut off Dave Smith comedy intro? Best part
She says the US gov is good for the money. The national debt and insolvent fiat dollar shows otherwise.
Jeremiah Talks Social Security is funded by taxes, I pay as an employee, and my employer matches. It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
@@peterpan8263 Yet I know how SS works, and that says nothing of my comment.
Jeremiah Talks The federal government will send another round of aid - $16 billion - to help farmers reeling financially by President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war with China.
The Trump administration granted around $62 million in financial assistance to a meatpacking company owned by Brazilian brothers guilty of bribing hundreds of officials in Brazil
Jeremiah Talks The nation’s largest banks saved $21 billion last year thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, some of which went into massive bonuses for bank executives.
Jeremiah Talks Show so it looks like that the federal government has plenty of money, when it comes to subsidies for Big agricultural, or large corporations, and fighting wars for oil companies.But when it comes to the working class, the middle class, the government seems to be broke
To parody upon a famous Al Gore term, "Crockbox".
It would be great to organize the Soho forums in a playlist
The fact that the Treasury bonds accrue interest alone shows that buying Treasury bonds with the funds adds to the deficit. If I borrow $100 from myself, and then have to pay back $110, due to interest, I am in debt to myself that additional $10. If it were dollar for dollar, it wouldn't add to the deficit, but it isn't.
This is the dumbest debate. Arguing over whether a bloated government program is contributing to the deficit or simply overtaxing people. Both are a moot point because the program is failure regardless.
"Cause I really do want to win..."
Give the lady the fucking tootsie roll already!!!
😂😂😂
Good discussion. 👍
So I am only 6 minutes into this thing. Has this woman even listened to the SSA themselves? They themselves are saying they are going broke. When the fund goes negative, massive changes are going to have to happen.
If you think there's a trust fund, try letting the young choose to opt-out for their own investments. It has always been paid to current retirees by current workers; my grandmother scored by getting paid for several decades despite having contributed for only a couple of years.
Why can't an old person who has lived his life and doesn't need special medical care still required to buy Medicare? Because it requires all to pay even if they don't need it.
We might all have a retirement plan if so much wasn't forced out of our paychecks. Social security and medicare are 15-20% of your income all your life, so of course you don't have that to invest for your own future, even if you know your future is limited (like if you have terminal cancer, you still pay for a retirement and for healthcare you no longer need).
Home Wall there’s no such thing as being an old person and not needing medical care. Do you think people age and just peacefully die in their sleep? No buddy, after the age of 55 it’s a slow & many times incremental road to death. Unless, you just have a heart attack and die on the spot. But even then, they will try to revive you and bill someone for it.
Whether it's the 1984 debate in Canada or a debate today or someone asking Milton Friedman a question, these people that ask questions can't help themselves from making statements.
If we were as bad as the government at doing our jobs we would be fired ...no more wars of aggression
SS is a wealth transfer from the young to the old. The old have all the wealth already, the young have little wealth left to transfer. This in lies the problem.
Where's Dave? :(
Yeah, I really wanted to hear his jokes about Social Security myself. :-(
Speaking of accounting fictions, "debt owed to the public" includes debt held by the Fed on which Congress effectively pays no interest and which it may refinance on demand.
There is interest
@@SandfordSmythe The Fed's profit is returned to the Treasury, so interest it receives on Treasuries it holds over its operating expense is returned.
Imagine you are saving up half a million dollars in a bank savings account to buy a house. You work for years putting part of your paycheck into your account. Finally, the time comes when you want to take out that money to buy a great house, so you go to your bank to take out the money. You get to the bank and ask for your money bank, but the teller says that they don't have enough money to give you back what you paid into your account. You saved up half a million dollars, but you only get $350,000 since the bank has been using your money to pay back what they promised their earlier customers and are now not getting enough money to pay you back in full. That is Social Security.
Finally a sensible explanation!
God love you Thersea, just like when debating WWII, someone has to defend Germany.
Only a child can make up better excuses than she made.
CovertBrony Security can’t, by law, add to the federal deficit, Social Security is self-funded.
She did say 4 times throughout that she won the debate. Looks like that tactic didn't quite work.
@@peterpan8263 Self funded by who?
CovertBrony Social Security is funded by taxes, I pay as an employee, and my employer matches. It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
Social Security, as people understand it, includes medicare and medicaid, which all operate under the same umbrella. The umbrella of benefits is in far worse shape than part A, which is the base of Social Security.
Also, no politician will ever allow Social Security benefits to be cut, including the parts that fall under the social security umbrella. Teresa was speaking of Part A only, which is far more stable than other parts.
Social Security the money is invested. It invested in treasury bonds so anyone buying treasury bonds is buying their own Social Security when time to cash out you have to pay yourself that interest. The ones who owe towards the national debt are the ones who owned the bonds. You can't get much more confusing than this. Yes Social Security can add to the deficit by investing in the bonds because it's those who own the bonds that owe the debt. This is what I got out of this merry go round.
This is how all US debt work. US borrows money, tax payers make good on it.
The government managed to fuck up a variation of an annuity. A financial product older than the federal reserve.
"Everything the government touches turns to shit"
Yep. It's basically a law of nature.
medicare wasn't suppose to use a certain percent of general revenue but they are way over the mark there. congress is one vote away from ignoring from not having it add to the debt or they can just ignore it like they did with medicare.
The U.S. government is nothing like a business firm and it is foolish to compare it to one. The U.S. government is not fiscally constrained in any absolute sense. Insolvency is literally impossible with a sovereign fiat currency. The only real concern is how government spending impacts inflation and, less importantly, the exchange rate. Fear of inflation is generally overblown as evidenced by how low it has remained after years of deficit spending. Social security can never be forced into insolvency irrespective of what happens with the trust fund. What the politicians decide to do with it is another purely political matter.
The difference between a stock and a bond is a stock is at least partially backed by current capital. I guess you could say the same about a government bond, if DC wants to sell off a few national parks to pay back a bond. The only reason a bond is more stable than a stock is the power of taxation, as she admitted. It is no different than any other deficit spending.
The difference is that one entity has the power of a gun behind it.
@@rottdogg8926 that too
I don't see this as a debate. I see someone fooled by a conman and someone else pull the curtain and display who Oz really is.
I agree with the male speaker, but when he breathes into the microphone it is so annoying.
Do you not understand inflation?
@@Alkalite Of course I understand deflation. It is the governments plan and only ability to survive is to inflate the dollar.
Every other entity on earth would rather have their money go further, but not a debt ridden central bank funded by the Rothchild's since the 1600's creating money out of thin air and charging governments to borrow it and pay it back with interest.
Do you understand how Private Central Banks work?
I'm not too angry at the lies because I know the stuff is going to hit the fan after I'm dead.
The politicians will manage to kick the can down the road a little farther.
@@GarthGoldberg I disagree. The next 10-15 years will be a time of massive change.
Lol, 'we can't rebalance the fund because we need 2.8 billion of liquidity.' Lmao, financial wisdom like this is exactly what you'd expect from people advising government
They are both right ...we are f(*&^%$d if we don't fire the gov
If it is a claim on things in the future then you've already lost, lady. First rebuttal and you gave it away.
No kidding, in that part she says the gov will pay those special SS bonds just like normal bonds. She might as well have conceded the debate right there.
I was listening to this with some mostly neutral skepticism until it reached the segment where people were asking questions. The SS-benefiting age people voiced some approval of the system as it is, while the working age people asked vaguely cynical questions attacking the premise of the system and were laughed at, ridiculed for their youth and then mostly dismissed.
I dislike this culture and its demagogues. I think I'll go join the squirrels in the nearby park and pay my taxes in acorns.
You now need to wonder no longer why the intelligent millennials and Gen Zers are NOT fond of a lot of the elderly.
This argument isn't about social security at all. It's about whether US government bonds count as an asset to the person who holds them. And I would argue that they count as much as any other type of debt. Corporate bonds are exactly the same as government bonds; ALL debt is an IOU, and ALL debt creates, prints if you will, money. If you want to discuss credit ratings, that's a different story.
There are two ways to look at this. Either social security is separate, and has bought assets backed by the federal government with its surplus, while the federal government owes money it created to pay for an aircraft carrier to social security. Or, if they are combined, the national debt is actually one trust fund less than the headline figure because asset and debt cancel out, and "the depletion of the trust fund" is actually just the government finally incurring that debt after a long delay. The woman was arguing the first, the man was kinda arguing the second, but without that important caveat that the national debt, by his logic, is only $15tn, not $20tn.
There is an argument for diversifying the trust funds into private or foreign stocks and bonds. But the debate presented in this video is stupid. Either way, revenue has to be raised or other spending cut so that people do actually get their cheques at 100% not 77% or 0%. Unless you want that, of course.
(correction: I wrote this halfway through the video, and someone did raise the cancelling out thing in the Q&A, and the man did acknowledge it. But far too many people don't.)
Why didn't anyone the governments limited ability to tax combined with social security being politically untouchable? Trust fund runs out, social security taxes go up to maintain benefits. This increase in taxes reduces the federal government's ability to raise revenue, as eventually you hit a point on the laffer curve when higher taxes reduce revenue. If taxes go up 2% to save social security, that 2% could've went to the general fund instead. You're taxing the same people.
Even if you consider social security and the federal government separate entities that tax, they both tax the same pool that has limited capacity to be taxed. So at the end of the day, if we assume that benefits won't be cut, rising unfunded liabilities from social security contribute to the debt because those liabilities will have to be paid by future taxes that could've went to the federal government.
So, everything will be fine. Until it’s not
Saving for retirement would be really easy if the government didn't inflate the money
A boomer advocating for SS? you don't say...
Is there a point where the return on social security is so unconscionable that it becomes a bad idea? Evidently not.
Even if she was right I think it is incredibly naive to think that politicians in 2035 won't try and change the law to fund Social Security and include it in the deficit.
where is this 3 trillion dollars....? Is there really an account with this as a fund and not just money going in and directly out from our paychecks to retirees ?
Yes, the trust fund account is in cartoon land at the Acme Federal Savings Bank.
It's fictional accounting, there are no funds other than what congress appropriates through budgets they pass. It's all monopoly money.
When you conflate an investor who buys T-bills (one person investing in another entity) with the government buying T-bills for itself, you show an utter lack of understanding how investment works. You simply cannot invest in yourself and claim you made interest profits. You can lend $100 to yourself, and pay yourself back $110 later, but only a fool believes they made $10 on their investment.
Intra-governmental debt is one thing, but in this case, Social Security borrowed from the Treasury (inter-governmental), but they then give it to people (not the government, unless we just pretend that we people are in fact the government).
When a foreign government buys US bonds, that does increase US debt. Or is she pretending that their investment is somehow trans-governmental debt and therefore doesn't exist?
How can you claim social security is secure if promised benefits must be cut or people must pay much higher taxes? Both solutions mean it's not secure. Sure, I can "protect" my house buy shooting intruders, but if I have to shoot intruders to protect my house, I'm clearly not secure.
The (income) tax hike required to extend promised SS benefits beyond 2040 (or whatever the projected date for "trust fund" exhaustion is now) was baked into the system from the get go. As Epstein describes here, practically every dollar drawn from the "trust fund" to pay SS benefits is current income tax revenue (or additional "borrowing" or monetary expansion), and the volume of income tax dollars paid to SS beneficiaries will increase steadily until the "trust fund" is exhausted. With no change in law of any kind, on the day before the exhaustion, income tax revenue pays 25% of SS benefits. So what happens the next day?
1. The SSA immediately cuts SS benefits by 25%. If anyone believes this story, I also sell real estate in the Everglades.
2. Congress elects to continue paying the same SS benefits to the same beneficiaries using same income tax revenue it used the day before. By the time this event occurs, the income tax hike has already occurred.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Let's get Tom woods onto the joe Rogan podcast!!!
I'm not sure I agree with Gene but damn he's a classy guy
What do you disagree with? Social Security is the government writing an IOU to itself. Useful for accounting purposes, sure, but that is not an asset. If I run a company and different departments write each other IOUs to keep track of funds, are they creating assets out of thin air? Of course not.
The scoring system should be proportionate not total votes changed.
Henry it’s a debate, so the debaters are measured on their persuasion skills. If you make people change their mind about a topic, it means you debated the topic really well. That’s the whole point of a debate competition, the topic is really irrelevant... although it’s more fun to listen to if the subject is interesting.
@@sarahdata3655 yes, but the winner of the debate gets a $2,000 paycheck and the loser gets $1,000. But moving from 5% to 10% will never beat someone that moves 80% to 90% when the loser literally doubled their amount convinced.
I think nick needed a preprinted flow sheet with times lol
Social Security is the best investment America can make!
- Bernie Madoff or Sanders
@0:00:22 I guess we need to remind congress the definition of a surplus. Perhaps Jeff Bezos or Warren Buffet could help on this clarification.
@0:03:50 So? What's the recourse if the books don't balance? If the recourse is nothing then they won't balance - ever!
@0:05:00 This turned in to stand up comedy in 5 minutes flat!
@0:07:40 You know the scene in Dumb and Dumber when the kidnappers open the briefcase and there's a bunch hand written IOUs... Yeah! You mean those "assets?"
@0:09:30 That $20 you borrow in the morning will very soon be $10 by lunch time.
@0:58:58 That's super easy. Zero and Zero and this way nobody pays for it.
Am I the only one who thinks that the question they're arguing over is both weirdly worded and or irrelevant? The main debate to be had is whether Social Security should be propped up or allowed to die.
The idea that inter-governmental transfers don't affect the economy is factually wrong. While the money stays within the US economy it is being taken from those who might be more productive and given to those who WERE potentially less productive. Therefore SS beneficiaries might receive more than their fair share. Resources are moved intentionally towards those who are more productive i.e. those providing the greatest good for the market/society. When the government interrupts this process they create market distortions and ultimately slow the economy. That is 6.2% of every entrepreneur's and working person's income.
The affirmative side does not believe the market is efficient, they just see the country as a single unit, a family, but they forget that the family as a unit acts efficiently like a firm. The family and the firm both allocate resources efficiently, the government does not because of what Hayek called the information problem, which is inherent in government.
Lol, social security is a small government program
54:40 There is a less controversial way to raise money that both parties would agree upon. Stop taxing income of people and companies; tax the stock market 1/10 of one percent and have wealthy people and institutions from all over the world pay our taxes, not working people.
SS is supposed to be funded by the individual workers
There is a trust fund set up through the Philippines which is/was to be paid by the Federal Reserve...Go to Lucid Dreamer TH-cam channel...
Astonishing that anyone could argue that "intragovernmental debt" doesn't have a net negative effect on the overall debt. That would assume that all debts affect the economy equally, and/or that putting control of the "trust fund" in the hands of the treasury instead of an "external" location like the private stock market doesn't influence overall federal spending and fiscal irresponsibly.
OF COURSE, if the government has access to the funds designated by the SSA as a "trust" it will inevitably be less responsible in budgetary concerns than it otherwise would be.
Only a statist idiot would argue that such access to your money would not be abused.
The example of the family that sets up a trust for their kids perfectly illustrates this, even though Gene wasn't nearly bold enough on that point. He should have made the point that if the parents bought private investments in their children's names rather than issuing IOU's, the assets would be INSULATED from the parents' own "internal" fiscal irresponsibly. But their ability to control the theoretical assets defined by the IOU's are vulnerable to their decisions being corrupted by their access to the assets.
The government's control of retirement assets, whether directly or through fictional barriers is the same. Just putting the government in charge of these schemes corrupts the schemes.
Gene Epstein is a God, reason tv is big gay
The fact that we have to have this debate tells me all I need to know.
But this is the first time I've thought Gene may be wrong. I'll have to do my own research.
Saying the law makes social security perform a certain way is a poor defense though, so I don't think social security is safe. Most of the government is illegal already. The law doesn't keep us safe.
Not...
Lies.
Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next 17 years, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2034 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.
But you left out a key point in your part about "as long as there are workers in America..."
You must have meant DOCUMENTED workers in America, because anyone in the system who is only taking from it and not contributing to it is helping to systematically break down the existing system. And I have to then wonder if those who have been claiming that the system is already broken aren't also the proponents of the breaking of the system themselves, by flooding it with UNDOCUMENTED workers, who, by definition, are not paying into the system into which they are demanding entry, and who, by definition of the United States Constitution, are illegal aliens, once in the US, without DOCUMENTATION of their intent while here.
//Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income.//
But how much income? Enough to pay all the promised outlays? That's the problem. Calling something close to 25% deficit a "modest funding gap" is rather alarming, especially in light of all the other problems that will be occurring. The payees to beneficiaries ratio in the late 1950s for Social Security was close to 8 to 1. By 2020, it will be 2 and 1/2 to 1. By the early 2040s, it is supposed to be 2 to 1. Let's hope we automate a whole lot and that those workers displaced get jobs elsewhere. If we add more machine-slaves to the economy to support it, then the pain of 50% of my actual worker-value going to the elderly won't hurt as much.
SPDworks This is tricky, if you’re paying payroll taxes you might be paying Social Security. Noncitizens living in the United States may be eligible for Social Security if they: Are permanent legal residents. Have visas that allow them to work in the United States.
Were allowed in the country under the Family Unity or Immediate Relative provisions of U.S. immigration law.
The answer is no because you are documenting
Stalemate IB remove the cap on Social Security 132,900.00 . It helps to look at who founds the Reason Foundation , David Koch is listed as a trustee of the Foundation. Between 1985 and 2015, $1,522,212 from the David H. Koch Foundation. David Koch ran for Vice President on repealing Social Security system
@@peterpan8263, well, yeah, that could also help a bit, but I kind of doubt that removing the cap will solve the whole problem.