Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Raise the SS contributions and Medicare contributions.

Pass a law that prevents any of that money from ever being touched, for any reason, period.

Problem is that you're mentally sticking with this stupid "trust fund" idea. It's unnecessary. The government doesn't need to save for a rainy day. It needs to set tax rates that fund its current obligations. 

The simple fact is that the SS/MC tax rates should be actuarially set based upon the demographic mix necessary to raise revenue and then pay recipients. I say jettison that the idea that you need to "save ahead" for the future of the program entirely. 

Set a process that every 5 years, the government determines the projected outlays for SS/MC, and sets the SS/MC taxes necessary for the next 5 years to meet that level of revenue. Any extra goes to the general fund. Any shortfall is made up by the general fund. Repeat. Perhaps you can put in kickers such that if for a 5 year period they were incorrect about the balance between the two, the taxes for the next 5 year period are maybe higher or lower based on the percentage shortfall or overage to try to make it a self-correcting mechanism (and not play politics with the tax rates). 

But we don't need a trust fund... And we don't need what you're suggesting, a lock box (hmm, where have I heard that one before?)...

Problem is that you're mentally sticking with this stupid "trust fund" idea. It's unnecessary. The government doesn't need to save for a rainy day. It needs to set tax rates that fund its current obligations.

The simple fact is that the SS/MC tax rates should be actuarially set based upon the demographic mix necessary to raise revenue and then pay recipients. I say jettison that the idea that you need to "save ahead" for the future of the program entirely.

Set a process that every 5 years, the government determines the projected outlays for SS/MC, and sets the SS/MC taxes necessary for the next 5 years to meet that level of revenue. Any extra goes to the general fund. Any shortfall is made up by the general fund. Repeat. Perhaps you can put in kickers such that if for a 5 year period they were incorrect about the balance between the two, the taxes for the next 5 year period are maybe higher or lower based on the percentage shortfall or overage to try to make it a self-correcting mechanism (and not play politics with the tax rates).

But we don't need a trust fund... And we don't need what you're suggesting, a lock box (hmm, where have I heard that one before?)...

And you trust the government to accomplish this? With all due respect, and I mean that whole-heartedly, dream on.

Well it's better than running a program in massive deficits and saying "hey, there's no actual problem here; look at this nifty trust fund!"

You come up with an idea "don't let anyone touch that money"--which is essentially what happened. The money was parked in the absolute safest possible investment it could have been. T Bills. As safe as cash (since the only way it would fail is a Treasury default and in that case the cash itself would be worthless), and even earning interest!

Well, I didn't come up with the idea, so there's that. The fact that it was stolen from, to me, is criminal.

Well, I didn't come up with the idea, so there's that. The fact that it was stolen from, to me, is criminal.

Sorry. Based on your response, I realize that the way I phrased that made it likely that it would be interpreted exactly opposite to my meaning.

My point was that nobody "touched" that money, or "stole from" that money, etc. They just weren't going to keep it in cash. It was put into the safest most trustworthy asset that it could possibly be put into. And that asset has been sitting there ready for the Social Security program to access whenever it needs it (and it has been drawing it down for I think most of the last decade).

The problem is that the asset that it was invested in, while extraordinarily safe for the Social Security program, makes claims on American taxpayers either now (taxes) or in the future (deficit spending). 

The SSTF invests in special Treasury bills, by law.  As noted, there is no safer investment in the world, and they get interest on it.  It would be silly to hold it in cash somewhere, somehow.

And I highlight again that this is why I hate the whole SSTF. If smart guys like you two don't really see the corrosive effect it has on honestly discussing the issue, what are the dumb-dumbs of the world going to do? 

I only use somewhat different verbiage.

I dunno...

The link you provided that set me off on this kept highlighting the point at which the trust fund is depleted as if it's a meaningful date. That to me buys into the falsehood that the SSTF is actually meaningful. And it obscures the fact that right now, SS shortfalls are not being paid by drawing down some "trust fund" full of cash, they're being paid by deficit spending.

Tomorrow Congress could pass a bill extinguishing the SSTF, cancelling all of those T Bills, and committing to paying current benefits and... Nothing of import would change. The question is and always will be "will we continue to pay benefits at X level?", not "when does the SSTF run out of assets?"

Be even acknowledging the SSTF and treating it with import, we're obscuring the ultimate question, which is how we're going to pay for all these retireee benefits.