Re: On Government Trust Funds


"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ucpg1dhr0tn3c58qc8eh3jutsk6ssktff@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:37:47 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"William F Hummel" <wfhummel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:fi0pg1dlnk7o47c1sgktu9mldocumf70ln@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>>> No, the economic distinction goes much further. Take Social Security
>>> for example. It is a pay as you go system whether we realize it or
>>> not. Today's benefits are paid out of today's Treasury receipts.
>>> There is no lock box to store today's excess FICA taxes for use in
>>> some future year. Thus the economic effects of today's payments,
>>> whatever they may be, fall on today's taxpayers. Likewise the effects
>>> of future payments will fall on those paying taxes at the time.
>>
>>So why run a SS surplus?
>>
> The reason an SS surplus exists is simply because of the FICA tax
> system. There would be no such thing as an SS surplus if we got rid
> of that system and the so-called trust fund. The SS surplus adds to

No, we could run negligible SS surpluses/deficits.

Currently we're "purposefully" running huge SS surpluses.

Let me pose a normative question instead of my descriptive one: *should* we
be running large SS surpluses? Why not just cut the payroll tax down to the
level needed for pay-as-you-go?

> the "official debt" which only compounds the confusion among the
> public and the politicians in Washington who don't really understand
> government finance. The only government debt that matters is that
> held by the private sector on which actual interest payments are made.
>
>>>>And while it's true that SS beneficiaries (future and current) have no
>>>>property interest in their benefits, it would be very difficult
>>>>politically
>>>>to wipe away the SS trust fund by a change in statute, even though it
>>>>would
>>>>be permissible under the Constitution to do so.
>>>>
>>> What is politically possible is irrelevant. In any case, few seem to
>>> realize De facto, all
>>> current benefits are paid out of the general fund, while bookkeepers
>>> adjust the amount that the government owes itself, a meaningless
>>> exercise.
>>
>>Misleading. These distinctions certainly matter in terms of who pays the
>>taxes.
>>
> Who pays taxes is governed by the tax code, and is a different issue.
> If the SS trust fund were eliminated, the government would continue to
> pay SS benefits out of the general fund and no one would notice
> because that is how it is done now. The only difference is that it
> would no longer have to engage in an meaningless bookkeeping exercise,
> writing and canceling IOUs to itself
>
> If FICA taxes were also eliminated, however, there would have to be
> some change in the tax code to compensate for loss of revenue.

Again, if the truyst fund is meaningless, what is the meaning of the FICA
tax dollars raised in excess of what's needed to pay current SS obligations?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: social secuirty bankruptcy in 2010?
    ... Fund may redeem them at its discretion at any time for par value. ... money comes from the US government, ... If I put money into my 401K and I borrow against it, ... you have to pay it back....very good. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: A trip down memory lane ...
    ... They'll go out to lunch and spend the money you gave ... it will be to pay back the borrowed SS surplus. ... anything claiming the government wasn't obliged to pay it back, ... So where o where are those "real dollars" in the SS fund? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: social secuirty bankruptcy in 2010?
    ... Fund may redeem them at its discretion at any time for par value. ... money comes from the US government, ... If I put money into my 401K and I borrow against it, ... you have to pay it back....very good. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Did Bruce influence your vote in 04
    ... various fund raisers. ... government funded ... There are private organizations that serve these people, ... parents on Medicaid to pay for costly, ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: OT: r - I thought you should see this
    ... You've just whacked the debt problem almost in half. ... Are you suggesting not having the funds purchase non-negotiable government bonds with the surplus revenues? ... Bury them in a coffee can in the SS fund back yard, stuff them in a mattress, buy non government securities? ... Also, assume two possible scenarios - the current system where more is currently collected than required to meet current expenses and the surplus is transferred to the general fund in exchange for non-negotiable IOUs, and an alternative where only what is required to meet current obligations is collected. ...
    (rec.woodworking)
Quantcast