vongrimmenstein
I stand for our flag, & kneel for the fallen
- Credits
- 112
Unless you go out on a medical. Then, they can never cut your benefits. von.
Yellow | Wages
- Thread starter vongrimmenstein
- Start date
Thanks Von. Insurance is the biggest issue. I hear it's a annual cap on the retiree plan.
$200,000
I was told by Central States that those under the PPA no longer have a disability pension.How the government allows pension cuts for the disabled is sickening.
How did this happen?
Another thing ..if YRCW bankrupts everyone in Central States will have their pensions slashed immensely.
How did this happen?
Another thing ..if YRCW bankrupts everyone in Central States will have their pensions slashed immensely.
realityofitall
TB Regular
- Credits
- 261
Cspf is already bankrupt. I believe 2022 25 is when it runs out of money. Please stop with yrc bankruptcy.
The only solution is Bernie Sander's National Pension Plan! Merge every pension plan with Social Security so everyone gets a pension.
Yes,Central States will be out of money in 2025.The PBGC has said if YRCW bankrupted they would go belly up.( I do think the government should and will bail them out since they created it ).
As far as YRCW bankrupting or getting voted out of business by us,the likelihood of that happening is pretty strong IMO.
please stop with the please stop
joes bar and grill
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
Yeah because congress has done such a great job of raiding SS they need a bigger money supply.
Does Congress raid Social Security?
(MoneyWatch) Since we're in political sound-bite season, let's address a misconception that's often repeated by pundits and political candidates alike: Congress raided the Social Security trust fund and spent it on their own pork-barrel projects.
The truth is that in prior years, Social Security taxes collected from workers added up to more than the amount of benefits paid to retirees. This buildup of surplus was intentional -- the government wanted to build a reserve that would cover the benefits of the baby boomers. This surplus has been invested in special U.S. government bonds that are legally obligated to pay the stated rate of interest, and then repay the principal when they mature, according to the terms of the bonds.
These special bonds are just part of the funding of the overall federal government, and the assets in the Social Security trust fund represent about 15 percent of the government's total debt. This process has taken place in full view of anybody who cared to learn about it. There have been no smoke-filled rooms where politicians sat around divvying up the earmarked money in the Social Security trust to finance their pet projects.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-congress-raid-social-security/
Oh no, you're going to find out quickly that posting facts will only get you scorn and vilification from some on here.
Yeah, but those “special bonds” make the repayments -15%......Oh no, you're going to find out quickly that posting facts will only get you scorn and vilification from some on here.
joes bar and grill
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
So what's the difference in "raiding the fund" as opposed to issuing a "special bond" and not repaying it?
By law, decided by The Supreme Court in 1937- all Social Security Taxes are General Taxes which must go Directly to the General Fund and be spent on whatever expense Congress Desires. Social Security is Taxes going in, and Welfare coming out, per SCOTUS. And, in 1960, SCOTUS decided there is absolutely no promise by Government to pay an amount.
Helvering vs Davis and Fleming vs Nestor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Helvering vs Davis and Fleming vs Nestor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvering_v._Davi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
It's all nothing. The Emperor isnt wearing clothes. The USA has made about $220 TRILLION in Entitlement Promises, and there is only about $60 Trillion in all the World's Wealth combined. No nation can ever keep those promises. The last nation that tried was Zimbabwe...
Can you cite a reliable source that backs up the claim that the money will not be repaid?
joes bar and grill
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
No, can you cite one that shows any of it was?
https://www.wsj.com/video/zimbabwes...lue/E32B371E-2016-4BAC-9FDA-5CBE5DB7FE7C.html
Zimbabwe once issued a $100 Trillion Zimbabwe Dollar. It's now worth 40 cents, USA
https://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/139027615/a-national-debt-of-14-trillion-try-211-trillion
According to Kotlikoff, one of the biggest fiscal problems Congress should focus on is America's obligation to make Social Security payments to future generations of the elderly.
"We've got 78 million baby boomers who are poised to collect, in about 15 to 20 years, about $40,000 per person. Multiply 78 million by $40,000 — you're talking about more than $3 trillion a year just to give to a portion of the population," he says. "That's an enormous bill that's overhanging our heads, and Congress isn't focused on it.
The situation with Social Security is somewhat complex, and is ripe for miss-characterization to suit a particular agenda. In spite of some misgivings about how the article is written, here are a couple of paragraphs I find interesting:
At the same time, what matters is not the total national debt, but the net debt after excluding intragovernmental debt, which is what the Trust Fund is. Activists might repeat "the government bonds in the Trust Fund are real assets" until they're blue in the face, but each dollar of FICA surplus, back when it existed, decreased the degree to which the federal government needed to borrow from outside, and each dollar of Trust Fund bond redeemed, is another dollar which the requires the issuing of more bonds.
What's more, while the Trust Fund bonds are "real" and the government would no more default on them than they would default on any other bonds, a default is wholly unnecessary. All that's needed for the government to keep the Trust Fund bonds "unspent" is to reduce Social Security spending, in whatever manner it chooses: a boost in the retirement age, a benefit phase-out based on other income, an across-the-board haircut, or whatever other mechanism it chooses. If Congress changed the law tomorrow, all of those beautiful Trust Fund bonds could be kept in perpetuity, never to be redeemed.
Yes, Social Security Does Indeed Add To The Federal Deficit
At the same time, what matters is not the total national debt, but the net debt after excluding intragovernmental debt, which is what the Trust Fund is. Activists might repeat "the government bonds in the Trust Fund are real assets" until they're blue in the face, but each dollar of FICA surplus, back when it existed, decreased the degree to which the federal government needed to borrow from outside, and each dollar of Trust Fund bond redeemed, is another dollar which the requires the issuing of more bonds.
What's more, while the Trust Fund bonds are "real" and the government would no more default on them than they would default on any other bonds, a default is wholly unnecessary. All that's needed for the government to keep the Trust Fund bonds "unspent" is to reduce Social Security spending, in whatever manner it chooses: a boost in the retirement age, a benefit phase-out based on other income, an across-the-board haircut, or whatever other mechanism it chooses. If Congress changed the law tomorrow, all of those beautiful Trust Fund bonds could be kept in perpetuity, never to be redeemed.
Yes, Social Security Does Indeed Add To The Federal Deficit