Hospitals & Asylums
Poverty and Social Security HA-7-2-16
By Anthony J. Sanders
A. Regulation of benefit programs is best
understood by the civil rights crime deprivation of relief benefits under
18USC¤246. It is necessary to convict the SSA Actuary, Commissioner and
Treasurer of a misdemeanor Òno COLAÓ offense on January 1 and a felony if
disability benefits are cut because the Commissioner was unable to do the math
because SSA will have to be retroactively accounted for, as directed in this
work, to pay back pay to compensate for the benefit loss and legislating a 3%
COLA for all social security beneficiaries in 2016 under Sec. 204 and 225(i) of
the Social Security Act 42USC¤404(c) and ¤425. Although the Constitution bans
retroactive laws, the insolvent Congress predictably failed to get the OASDI
tax rate right in time, and it is because Congress did not pass the law, the
OASDI tax rate must be retroactively accounted for from January 1 to pay the
compensation (backpay) and free the year from the jail of simple civil rights
offenders facing heightened penalties for discriminating against elders and the
disabled. The political solution is to abolish the incompetent Actuary and hold
the Commissioner responsible for accounting for this underpayment Sec. 204 of
the Social Security Act 42USC¤404(c) from January 1, 2016 as directed in this
work. The federal government could have a budget surplus if only the $118,500
(2015) OASDI limit on taxable income were eliminated and revenues were shared
with the federal government, as directed in the end of this work - the true
accounting of the federal budget. SSA must however get the OASDI tax rate right
for accounting competency purposes. The correct OASDI tax rate, that must be
retroactively accounted for from January 1, 2016, to afford the back payments
due faultless beneficiaries, are Ð 2.4% DI 10.0% OASI in 2016, 2.3% DI 10.1%
OASI in 2017, and 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI in 2018.
a. Social security is the largest, most
important and most loved social program in modern governments. More than 50
million people receive the majority of their income from social security. More
than 6 million people who receive disability insurance benefits face wrongful
benefit cuts sometime this 2016 when the DI trust fund is predicted to be
exhausted, because the Obama Administration didn't get the OASDI tax rate math
right in time to prevent the causation of criminal damage. The United States
must get the OASDI tax rate right to save the DI trust fund and free 2016 from
jail. Furthermore, the United States must survey the racial theory that the
Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
discriminate against poor African-Americans, of both sexes, under Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Blacks seem to be cruelly expected to survive
until retirement, without equal access to disability insurance or SSI. Blacks
are reported, by numerous black SSA employees, to enjoy limited access to
survivor benefits, for the few who pass the ALJs murder test; Obama failed
before he was even elected. Blacks in power must stop discriminating against
disability and start suing for 'extremely poor African-American or half
African-American' to be a 'qualifying disability' if, after surveying, it is
corroborated, that there are a disproportionately small number of
African-American disability and SSI beneficiaries under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
1. Since 2000 when the 1.8% rate was legislated
the OASDI tax rate has not been changed and it is projected that the DI trust
fund is going to be depleted this 2016 although OASI makes enough revenues to
pay for DI without an OASI deficit until 2019 if optimally adjusted. In 2008,
just before costs first exceeded revenues, it became apparent that the DI trust
fund was going to be depleted much sooner than the OASI trust fund and the DI
tax rate should have been increased. In 2000 the DI Trust Fund disbursed $60.2
billion, the balance was $55 billion. Since 2009 DI program costs have exceeded
combined payroll tax and interest income by -$12.2 in 2009, -$23.6 in 2010 and
-$25.8 in 2011. The trust fund ratio began its inexorable decline from a high
of 199% in 2008 to 183% in 2009. DI costs continued to rise but revenues
declined to a low of $105.5 billion in 2010. Growth was slow and by 2012 DI
total revenues were $108.8 but program cost had risen to $138.5 billion and the
trust fund had fallen to $132 billion 117% of annual benefit payments. (Tables
VI. C5, VI.G2 Disability Benefit Disbursement under the OASDI Program 2013
Annual Report). By 2015 total revenues were projected to increase to $121.2 but
the early retirement of the baby boomers had swollen payments to $151 billion
and there was only $28.4 billion left, at the end of the year the trust fund
ratio was 39% and in 2016 the trust fund is expected to be entirely depleted
and would cease functioning, reduced benefits would continue to be paid with
tax revenues. (Table IV.A2 Operations of the DI Trust Fund 2014 Annual Report).
It is unfair that SSA is considering cutting benefits as low as 80% of current
value when the trust fund is depleted sometime in 2016 when all they need to do
is adjust the tax rate.
2. In 2016 total revenues are estimated to be
$129.3 billion, payroll tax contributions are estimated to be $125..7 billion
and total expenses $159.4 billion. To quickly estimate the minimum tax rate
that the DI trust fund needs with the ratio 1.8 / 125.7 = x / 159.4 where x
yields a DI tax rate of 2.3%. The DI trust fund has however been operating on a
deficit since 2009 and is nearly depleted at year end 2015. It is therefore
necessary to adjust the OASDI tax rate to an emergency rate of 2.4% to avoid
depleting the trust fun. Using the same equation 1.8 / 125.7 = 2.4 / x the 2.4%
rate would generate $167.6 billion in revenues, saving $8.2 billion for a trust
fund balance of $44.2 billion, including about $1.5 billion in interest income
at year end 2016. The United States must legislate the 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI
tax rate immediately. In 2017 the 2.3% tax rate is estimated to bring in $170.5
billion and expenses are estimated at $165.2 billion saving the DI trust fund
$5.7 billion, bringing the trust fund balance to $51.6 billion, including about
$1.7 billion interest income. In 2018 so many baby boomers are expected to have
retired from disability that the actual DI tax rate should be adjusted to 2.2%,
to prevent an early deficit in the OASI trust fund, making $185 billion and
costing $171.2 billion, saving $13.8 billion. The DI tax rate of 2.2% and OASI
tax rate of 10.2% is expected to be the intermediate rate from 2018 to at least
2022, that holds even when the OASI trust fund begins to show a deficit around
2020 to protect the smaller DI trust fund. The OASI trust fund is much larger
and can better afford to lobby SSA to eliminate the maximum taxable limit on
income and tax the richest to increase OASDI tax revenues by 130%, increase
welfare spending and balance the federal budget, the year the new tax goes into
effect. The 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI OASDI tax rate estimates for 2016 must be
legislated right away by unanimous roll-call vote:
Free Disability Insurance Reallocation Tax
(DIRT) and 3% COLA Social Security Amendment of January 1, 2016
To amend the DI tax rate from 1.80% to 2.40% in
2016, 2.30% in 2017 and 2.20% in 2018; from 0.90% to 1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in
2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employees and from 0.90% to 1.20% in 2016, 1.15% in
2017 and 1.10% in 2018 for employers under Sec. 201(b)(1)(S) of the Social
Security Act 42USC(7)II¤401.
To amend the OASI tax rate from 10.60% to 10.0%
in 2016, 10.10% in 2017, and 10.20% in 2018; from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, to
5.05% in 2017, to 5.10% in 2018 for employees under 26USC(C)(21)(A)¤3101 (a)
and from 5.30% to 5.00% in 2016, 5.05% in 2017, and 5.10% in 2018 for employers
under 26USC(C)(21)(A)¤3111 (a) to avoid depletion of the Disability Insurance
(DI) Trust Fund in 2016 without increasing the overall 12.4% OASDI or 15.3%
OASDI and Hospital Insurance (HI) Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax-rate
under 26USC(A)(2)¤1401.
To legislate a 3% annual COLA at Sec. 225(i)
42USC425(i) retroactive to January 1, 2016 under Sec. 204(c) 42USC¤404(c).
Be it enacted by the House and Senate Assembled
B. The United States is tired of being toyed
with by the Actuary's real or feigned inability to perform the his OASDI tax
rate calculation duties and refuses to fall prey again to fraudulent Harvard
welfare advisors. Getting the OASDI tax rate right has been a priority every
fiscal year since the baby boomers first incurred costs in excess of DI
revenues in 2009, the tyranny was unable to account for, Harvard having opted
to kill Osama bin Laden instead of being responsible for the supporting
documents, whose math and laws, were ignored to lose the race for Commissioner
Social Security Caucus of 2011s for case-lessness. The ActuaryÕs letter to the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) titled, ÔPotential
Reallocation of the Payroll Tax Rate Between the Disability Insurance (DI)
Program and the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) ProgramÕ dated February
5, 2015 was wrong to use the actuarial DI shortfall statistic of 2.7% proposed
by the President as the result of a misleading intermediate estimate the fine
print explains cannot be used to estimate the tax rate, after being informed of
the correct 2.3% DI tax rate at the end of 2014 and then perpetuating the wrong
answer. On September 30, 2015 Estimate of the Effects on the OASI and DI Trust
Funds of enacting the temporary reallocation of the payroll tax rate proposed
in S. 2090 and H.R. 3621, was published by the Actuary regarding legislation
introduced on September 28, 2015 by Senator Ron Wyden and Representative Sandy
Levin. The proposal would increase the total (employee plus employer) payroll
tax rate for the DI Trust Fund by 0.85 percentage point, from 1.8 to 2.65
percent, for calendar years 2016 through 2020. The financial status of the
combined OASI and DI Trust Funds is essentially the same as under present law.
The combined asset reserves of the OASI and DI Trust Funds would become
depleted in 2034. After reserve depletion in 2034, tax income would be
sufficient to cover 79 percent of cost. This percent drops to 73 by 2089. The
asset reserves of the OASI Trust Fund would become depleted in 2034. After
reserve depletion in 2034, tax income would cover 77 percent of cost. This
percent drops to 71 by 2088. The asset reserves of the DI Trust Fund would
become depleted in 2034. After reserve depletion in 2034, non-interest income
would cover 89 percent of cost. This percent drops to 81 by 2089. This bill is
adequate but does not get the math exactly right and would accelerate the moment
at which the OASI trust would begin to exhibit an unpleasant deficit. Every
tenth of a percent of DI tax rate adjustment is billions of dollars from the
OASI tax. In fact at a 2.65% rate, it can be calculated that the OASI trust
fund would have a deficit of about $300 million at the end of 2016.
1. Having been informed of the 2.4% rate, the
current Congressional DI tax rate estimate is basically correct, but
perpetuating the Paperwork Reduction Act, that politely asks to be abolished,
was estimated at $10 million, and the Actuary paid no mind to the $30 billion
dollar social security amendment that requires proper legislative citation, as
done above, and none of the propaganda for the hiring of civil rights
criminals, nor infinite complexity of an insolvent balanced budget act that has
plagiarized the answer to the Actuary's calculation from the disability
beneficiary who actually balances their budget, and not their own unusually
difficult task to find the citations needed to amend the OASDI tax rate in the
United States Code. On October 27 2015 John Boehner received a memorandum from
the Actuary titled Estimate of the Effects on the OASI and DI Trust Funds of
enacting the temporary reallocation of a portion of the OASDI payroll tax rate
proposed in H.R. 1314, the "Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,"
introduced on September 27, 2015 Section 833. Reallocation of payroll tax
revenue. For earnings in calendar years 2016 through 2018, increase from 1.80
percent to 2.37 percent the portion of the total 12.40 percent OASDI payroll
tax that is directed to the DI Trust Fund. This reallocation of the payroll tax
rates is projected to change the date for DI reserve depletion from the fourth
quarter of 2016 to approximately the third quarter of 2022. The 2.37 percent rate
estimated by Congress is not the 2.4% rate self-employed taxpayers might see on
their paystubs. Nor does a flat 2.4% rate account for the retirement of the
large class of baby boomers in 2018 that is expected to reduce the rate of
disability to 2.2%. Nor does the Actuary estimate the $35.4 billion a 2.37% DI
tax rate, rounded up to 2.4% of the taxable payroll, that would save his DI
trust fund from certain depletion sometime in 2016.
C. Social Security is the primary social safety
net for the poor, aged and disabled. 165 million working Americans, 93 percent
of all workers, earn Social SecurityÕs disability, survivor, and retirement
protections for themselves and their families. In 2016 Social Security paid
$834 billion in benefits to more than 58 million beneficiaries Ð nearly one in
five Americans. 38 million retired workers, 9 million disabled workers. Of the
nationÕs 74 million children under age 18. Each month, 4.4 million dependent children
Ð about 3.4 million under age 19 and 2 million adults disabled before age 22 Ð
receive Social Security checks totaling about $2.5 billion. Operating on a such
a large and growing deficit the DI trust fund is predicted to be totally
depleted sometime in 2016, at which time the Social Security Trustees conspire
to cut benefits to around 80% of current value. Under the current intermediate
assumptions, the Social Security Trustees project that annual cost for the
OASDI program will exceed non-interest income in 2014 and remain higher
throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The projected theoretical
combined OASI and DI Trust Fund asset reserves increase through 2019, begin to
decline in 2020, and become depleted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in
full on a timely basis in 2033. At the time of reserve depletion, continuing
income to the combined trust funds would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of
scheduled benefits. However, the DI Trust Fund reserves become depleted in
2016, at which time continuing income to the DI Trust Fund would be sufficient
to pay 81 percent of DI benefits. Therefore, legislative action is needed as
soon as possible to address the DI programÕs financial imbalance. Lawmakers may
consider responding to the impending DI Trust Fund reserve depletion as they
did in 1994, solely by reallocating the payroll tax rate between OASI and DI.
Such a response might serve to delay DI reforms and much needed corrections for
OASDI as a whole. However, enactment of a more permanent solution could (must)
include a tax reallocation in the short-run. Although the annual rate can be
calculated fairly quickly, to navigate the extremely dynamic surge of retiring
baby boomers, currently at the peak of their disability years, it is necessary
to put different rates in a table to make an informed decision to have variable
rates. This Òpain in the OASDIÓ tax rate calculation takes a week of full time
sedentary work certain to cause sciatica or heart disease.
Optimal OASDI Tax Rate Competition
in Billions 2015-2022
|
OASDI Tax |
Payroll Revenues |
Total Revenues |
Total Costs |
Change in Fund |
Fund |
|
2015 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
808.4 |
938.0 |
909.7 |
28.3 |
2,812.1 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
691.1 |
816.8 |
758.7 |
58.1 |
2,783.7 |
|
DI 1.8% |
117.3 |
121.2 |
151.0 |
-29.8 |
28.4 |
|
2015 OASDI 12.4% 10.0/2.4 |
808.4 |
938.0 |
909.7 |
28.3 |
2,812.1 |
|
OASI 10.0% |
651.7 |
777.4 |
758.7 |
18.7 |
2,744.2 |
|
DI 2.4% |
156.7 |
161.6 |
151.0 |
10.6 |
68.8 |
|
2015 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
808.4 |
938.0 |
909.7 |
28.3 |
2,812.1 |
|
OASI 10.1% |
658.5 |
784.2 |
758.7 |
25.5 |
2,751 |
|
DI 2.3% |
149.9 |
153.8 |
151.0 |
2.8 |
61.0 |
|
2015 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
808.4 |
938.0 |
909.7 |
28.3 |
2,812.1 |
|
OASI 10.2% |
665.0 |
789.5 |
758.7 |
30.8 |
2,811.6 |
|
DI 2.2% |
143.4 |
148.5 |
151.0 |
-3.7 |
54.5 |
|
2016 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
853.0 |
985.3 |
963.3 |
22.0 |
2,834.1 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
729.2 |
858.8 |
807.5 |
51.3 |
2,835.0 |
|
DI 1.8% |
123.8 |
125.8 |
155.8 |
-30 |
-1.6 |
|
2016 OASDI 12.4% 10.0/2.4 |
853.0 |
985.3 |
963.3 |
22.0 |
2,834.1 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2015 |
687.9 |
817.5 |
807.5 |
10.0 |
2,793.7 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2016 |
687.9 |
817.5 |
807.5 |
10.0 |
2,754.2 |
|
DI 2.4% 2015 |
165.1 |
168.0 |
155.8 |
13.8 |
73.6 |
|
DI 2.4% 2016 |
165.1 |
167.1 |
155.8 |
12.9 |
9.3 |
|
2016 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
853.0 |
985.3 |
963.3 |
22.0 |
2,834.1 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2015 |
694.8 |
823.4 |
807.5 |
15.9 |
2,766.9 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2016 |
694.8 |
824.4 |
807.5 |
16.9 |
2,800.6 |
|
DI 2.3% 2015 |
158.2 |
161.2 |
155.8 |
5.4 |
67.4 |
|
DI 2.3% 2016 |
158.2 |
160.2 |
155.8 |
4.4 |
32.6 |
|
2017 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
904.9 |
1,042.7 |
1,022.3 |
20.4 |
2,854.4 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
773.5 |
909.7 |
861.1 |
48.6 |
2,883.6 |
|
DI 1.8% |
131.4 |
133.6 |
161.2 |
-17.6 |
-22.2 |
|
2017 OASDI 12.4% 10.0/2.4 |
904.9 |
1,042.7 |
1,022.3 |
20.4 |
2,854.4 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2015 |
729.7 |
863.9 |
861.1 |
2.8 |
2,796.5 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2016 |
729.7 |
865.9 |
861.1 |
4.8 |
2,759 |
|
DI 2.4% 2015 |
175.2 |
179.4 |
161.2 |
18.2 |
85.6 |
|
DI 2.4% 2016 |
175.2 |
177.4 |
161.2 |
16.2 |
48.8 |
|
2017 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
904.9 |
1,042.7 |
1,022.3 |
20.4 |
2,854.4 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2015 |
737.0 |
873.2 |
861.1 |
12.1 |
2,779 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2016 |
737.0 |
874.2 |
861.1 |
13.1 |
2,813.7 |
|
DI 2.3% 2015 |
171.4 |
175.9 |
161.2 |
14.7 |
81.1 |
|
DI 2.3% 2016 |
171.4 |
174.9 |
161.2 |
13.7 |
46.3 |
|
2018 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
960 |
1,105 |
1,087.6 |
17.4 |
2,871.8 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
820.7 |
965.3 |
920.5 |
44.7 |
2,928.3 |
|
DI 1.8% |
139.4 |
141.9 |
167.1 |
-25.2 |
-47.4 |
|
2018 OASDI 12.4% 10.0/2.4 |
960 |
1,105 |
1,087.6 |
17.4 |
2,871.8 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2015 |
774.3 |
917.2 |
920.5 |
-3.3 |
2,793.2 |
|
OASI 10.0% 2016 |
774.3 |
918.2 |
920.5 |
-2.3 |
2,756.7 |
|
DI 2.4% 2015 |
185.9 |
190.0 |
167.1 |
22.9 |
108.5 |
|
DI 2.4% 2016 |
185.9 |
188.6 |
167.1 |
21.5 |
67.8 |
|
2018 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
960 |
1,105 |
1,087.6 |
17.4 |
2,871.8 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2015 |
782 |
925.6 |
920.5 |
5.1 |
2,784.1 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2016 |
782 |
926.6 |
920.5 |
6.1 |
2,819.8 |
|
DI 2.3% 2015 |
178.1 |
182.6 |
167.1 |
15.5 |
96.6 |
|
DI 2.3% 2016 |
178.1 |
181.6 |
167.1 |
14.5 |
60.8 |
|
2018 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
960 |
1,105 |
1,087.6 |
17.4 |
2,871.8 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.1 2015 |
789.7 |
934.3 |
920.5 |
13.8 |
2,792.8 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.1 2016 |
789.7 |
933.3 |
920.5 |
12.8 |
2,832.6 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
170.4 |
176.9 |
167.1 |
9.8 |
90.9 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2016 |
170.4 |
175.9 |
167.1 |
8.8 |
55.1 |
|
2018 OASDI 12.4% 10.3/2.1 |
960 |
1,105 |
1,087.6 |
17.4 |
2,871.8 |
|
OASI 10.3% 10.1 2015 |
797.5 |
939.1 |
920.5 |
18.6 |
2,795.6 |
|
OASI 10.3% 10.1 2015 |
797.5 |
940.1 |
920.5 |
19.6 |
2,837.4 |
|
DI 2.1% 2.3 2015 |
162.6 |
168.1 |
167.1 |
1 |
82.1 |
|
DI 2.1% 2.3 2016 |
162.6 |
167.1 |
167.1 |
0 |
46.3 |
|
2019 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
1,012.9 |
1,165.1 |
1,158.7 |
6.4 |
2,878.3 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
865.8 |
1,019 |
985.1 |
33.9 |
2,962.2 |
|
DI 1.8% |
147.0 |
149.7 |
173.6 |
-23.9 |
-71.3 |
|
2019 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
1,012.9 |
1,165.1 |
1,158.7 |
6.4 |
2,878.3 |
|
OASI 10.2 10.1 2015 |
833.1 |
981.3 |
985.1 |
-3.8 |
2,789 |
|
OASI 10.2 10.1 2016 |
833.1 |
982.3 |
985.1 |
-2.8 |
2,829.8 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
179.7 |
186.4 |
173.6 |
12.8 |
103.7 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
179.7 |
185.4 |
173.6 |
11.8 |
56.9 |
|
2019 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
1,012.9 |
1,165.1 |
1,158.7 |
6.4 |
2,878.3 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2015 |
825.0 |
976 |
985.1 |
-9.1 |
2,754.6 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2016 |
825.0 |
977 |
985.1 |
-8.1 |
2,812.7 |
|
DI 2.3% 2015 |
187.8 |
193.5 |
173.6 |
19.9 |
128.4 |
|
DI 2.3% 2016 |
187.8 |
192.4 |
173.6 |
18.8 |
85.6 |
|
2020 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,235.2 |
-10.7 |
2,867.6 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
910.9 |
1,072.0 |
1,054.6 |
17.4 |
2,979.5 |
|
DI 1.8% |
154.7 |
157.6 |
180.6 |
-23 |
-94.3 |
|
2020 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,235.2 |
-10.7 |
2,867.6 |
|
OASI 10.2 10.1 2015 |
876.5 |
1,032.6 |
1,054.6 |
-22 |
2,767 |
|
OASI 10.2 10.1 2016 |
876.5 |
1,033.6 |
1,054.6 |
-21 |
2,808.8 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
189.1 |
197 |
180.6 |
16.4 |
120.1 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2016 |
189.1 |
196 |
180.6 |
15.4 |
72.3 |
|
2020 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,235.2 |
-10.7 |
2,867.6 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2015 |
867.9 |
1,025 |
1,054.6 |
-29.6 |
2,725 |
|
OASI 10.1% 2016 |
867.9 |
1,026 |
1,054.6 |
-28.6 |
2,784.1 |
|
DI 2.3% 2015 |
197.7 |
205.6 |
180.6 |
25.0 |
153.4 |
|
DI 2.3% 2016 |
197.7 |
204.6 |
180.6 |
24.0 |
109.6 |
|
2021 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,312.3 |
-29.1 |
2,838.4 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
956.5 |
1,124.3 |
1,122.9 |
1.4 |
2,980.9 |
|
DI 1.8% |
162.4 |
165.5 |
189.4 |
-23.9 |
-118.2 |
|
2021 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,312.3 |
-29.1 |
2,838.4 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.3 2015 |
920.4 |
1,082.2 |
1,122.9 |
-34.7 |
2,732.3 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.3 2016 |
920.4 |
1,083.2 |
1,122.9 |
-33.7 |
2,775.1 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
198.5 |
207.6 |
189.4 |
18.2 |
138.3 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2016 |
198.5 |
206.6 |
189.4 |
17.2 |
89.5 |
|
2021 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
1,065.5 |
1,224.5 |
1,312.3 |
-29.1 |
2,838.4 |
|
OASI 10.1 |
911.4 |
1,079.2 |
1,122.9 |
-43.7 |
2,681.3 |
|
DI 2.3 |
207.5 |
210.6 |
189.4 |
21.2 |
174.6 |
|
2022 OASDI 12.4% 10.6/1.8 |
1,172.0 |
1,341.4 |
1,395.8 |
-54.4 |
2,784.1 |
|
OASI 10.6% |
1,001.8 |
1,176.3 |
1,197.3 |
-21 |
2,959.9 |
|
DI 1.8% |
170.1 |
173.2 |
198.5 |
-25.3 |
-143.5 |
|
2022 OASDI 12.4% 10.2/2.2 |
1,172.0 |
1,341.4 |
1,395.8 |
-54.4 |
2,784.1 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.3 2015 |
964 |
1,131.5 |
1,197.3 |
-65.8 |
2,666.5 |
|
OASI 10.2% 10.3 2016 |
964 |
1,132.5 |
1,197.3 |
-64.8 |
2,710.3 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2015 |
207.9 |
218 |
198.5 |
19.5 |
157.8 |
|
DI 2.2% 2.3 2016 |
207.9 |
217 |
198.5 |
18.5 |
108 |
|
2022 OASDI 12.4% 10.1/2.3 |
1,172.0 |
1,341.4 |
1,395.8 |
-54.4 |
2,784.1 |
|
OASI 10.1 |
954.5 |
1,120 |
1,197.3 |
-77 |
2,604.3 |
|
DI 2.3 |
217.4 |
229.5 |
198.5 |
40.0 |
214.6 |
Source: Goss Õ14 Tables IV.A1-3 Intermediate
Projections, this differential equation comparing the effectiveness of
different rates in dollar amounts takes a week the first time. It is possible
that the Actuary could agree with the optimal rates of 2.3% DI and 10.1% OASI
until 2018 when the optimal rate goes to 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI.
1. Whereas the hard work
has been done, it is now simply the matter of an hour to corroborate the
adequacy of the current year, and a day for the SSA Commissioner to corroborate
the right answer by methodically update Tables IV pertaining to the dollars
figures of the OASI and DI trust funds, without making any actuarial errors. Two errors were
detected in OASI Trust Fund Table IV.A.1, and at least one more is suspected
before Table IV.A.3 OASDI in the 2015 Annual Report of the
OASDI Trustees 2014. First a uniform rate of interest must be declared Ð 3.4% is
standard. Second, the high expenditure figures are misplaced in the low-cost
projection. To correct the 2014 Annual Report the Actuaries must first redo the
DI Trust Fund Table A.2 using Arabic numeral 0 and negative numbers, in order
to negotiate with the OASI trust fund. Second, the expenditure projections in
the OASI Trust Fund Table A.1 must be properly arranged from high cost to low
cost. Third, from a credible starting date, the Actuary must redo the OASI
Trust Fund Table IV A.1 at an interest rate of their own declaration, the 3.4%
rate is the norm. Fourth, the Actuary must recalculate the combined OASDI Trust
Fund Table IV A.3. Fifth, the Actuaries redo the tables with the 2.4% DI 10.0%
OASI rate of taxation in 2016, 2.3% DI 10.1% OASI in 2017 and 2.2% DI 10.2%
OASI in 2018. Sixth, having an accurate baseline the Actuary must estimate the
130% increase in revenues that would result from the Without Income Limit Law
(WILL). The WILL would prevent the OASI trust fund from developing a modest
deficit in 2019 and possibly from needing to raise the overall OASDI tax rate
in 2035 at the height of baby boomer costs. Taxing the rich would also make it
possible to balance the true federal budget.
DI Trust Fund
Depletion with Zero Interest and Negative Balance 2015-2022
|
Year |
Total Revenue |
Payroll Tax |
Other Revenue |
Net Interest |
Total Spending |
Net Increase Year End |
Year End Balance |
|
2015 |
121.2 |
117.3 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
151.0 |
-29.8 |
28.4 |
|
2016 |
125.8 |
123.8 |
2.0 |
0 |
155.8 |
-30.0 |
-1.6 |
|
2017 |
133.6 |
131.4 |
2.2 |
0 |
161.2 |
-27.6 |
-29.2 |
|
2018 |
141.9 |
139.4 |
2.5 |
0 |
167.1 |
-25.2 |
-54.4 |
|
2019 |
149.7 |
147.0 |
2.7 |
0 |
173.6 |
-23.9 |
-78.3 |
|
2020 |
157.6 |
154.7 |
2.9 |
0 |
180.6 |
-23 |
-101.3 |
|
2021 |
165.5 |
162.4 |
3.1 |
0 |
189.4 |
-23.9 |
-125.2 |
|
2022 |
173.5 |
170.1 |
3.4 |
0 |
198.5 |
-25 |
-150.2 |
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.2.
2. To begin calculating the OASDI tax
reallocation DI Table IV.A.2 must be filled out. The Actuary left it to the
reader to add other revenues, meaning the taxation of benefits, contributions
from the General Fund and net interest, to come up with total revenue. Because
there are no interest revenues, insignificant to nothing contributions from the
General Fund are combined with the taxation of benefits to come up with Other
Revenue. There is no interest after 2015 because the Trust fund will be
depleted under current law. Net Interest is conservatively estimated at 3% for
DIRT and WILL projections. Total spending is estimated using the ActuaryÕs
intermediate projections for the current law. Administrative and Railroad
Benefits are affordable and do not raise any questions. Net increase at year
end is total revenues minus total spending. The total net increase is added to
previous number, or subtracted if that number happens to be negative. At the
end of 2015 the DI Trust Fund is estimated to have a balanced of $28.4 billion,
however due to the ongoing deficit, the trust fund will be depleted sometime in
2016 and at the end of the year the balance will be -$1.6 billion, in 2017 it
will -$29.2 billion and by 2020 it will reach -$101.3. The OASI Trust Fund
could pay the deficit as a reduction in assets at the end of the year and there
would be no DI trust fund, only a payroll tax and some taxation of benefits for
revenues and benefit payments, administration and Railroad benefits for
expenses. This is the easiest solution, it is sloppy accounting, but not
criminally so, because no-oneÕs benefits would be unnecessarily cut, nor trust
fund depleted. The right way to transfer revenues from one trust fund to the
other is however to adjust the tax rate. SSA has previously always been able to
perform the OASDI reallocation math. Now we are ready to begin calculating the
optimal OASDI tax rate; 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI in 20-16, 2.3% DI and 10.1% OASI
in 2017 and 2.2% DI and 10.2% OASI in 2018, after which time the rate is
expected to stabilize with the retirement of the baby boomers, giving the DI
trust a slight advantage that would cause deficits to show first in the OASI
trust fund, but the DI trust fund is small and disability rates can change
disastrously, wherefore the adequacy of the tax rate must be regularly checked.
The 2.4% DI tax rate of 2016 increases the trust fund balance by $5.3 billion over
a 2.3% rate and $35.4 billion over the inadequate 1.8% rate.
DI Trust Fund:
Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
(billions)
|
Year |
Total Rev. |
Payroll Tax |
Other Rev. |
Net Interest |
Gross Cost |
Gross Increase |
USPS Fed 2020 |
Year End Balance |
|
2015 |
121.2 |
117.3 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
151.0 |
-29.8 |
0 |
28.4 |
|
2016 |
125.8 |
123.8 |
2.0 |
0 |
155.8 |
-30.0 |
0 |
-1.6 |
|
DIRT 2.4 |
167.1 |
165.1 |
2.0 |
1.0 |
155.8 |
11.3 |
0 |
34.8 |
|
WILL |
216.7 |
214.7 |
2.0 |
1.0 |
161.0 |
55.7 |
21.4 |
62.7 |
|
2017 |
133.6 |
131.4 |
2.2 |
0 |
161.2 |
-27.6 |
0 |
-29.2 |
|
DIRT |
171.3 |
167.9 |
2.2 |
1.2 |
161.2 |
10.1 |
0 |
44.9 |
|
WILL |
222.4 |
218.3 |
2.2 |
1.9 |
167.3 |
55.1 |
21.9 |
88.9 |
|
2018 |
141.9 |
139.4 |
2.5 |
0 |
167.1 |
-25.2 |
0 |
-54.4 |
|
DIRT 2.2 |
174.4 |
170.3 |
2.5 |
1.5 |
167.1 |
7.3 |
0 |
52.2 |
|
WILL |
226.9 |
221.4 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
173.9 |
53 |
22.3 |
119.6 |
|
2019 |
149.7 |
147.0 |
2.7 |
0 |
173.6 |
-23.9 |
0 |
-78.3 |
|
DIRT |
184 |
179.6 |
2.7 |
1.7 |
173.6 |
10.4 |
0 |
62.6 |
|
WILL |
240.2 |
233.5 |
2.7 |
4.0 |
180.9 |
59.3 |
22.8 |
156.1 |
|
2020 |
157.6 |
154.7 |
2.9 |
0 |
180.6 |
-23 |
0 |
-101.3 |
|
DIRT |
194.1 |
189.1 |
2.9 |
2.1 |
180.6 |
13.5 |
0 |
76.1 |
|
WILL |
254.0 |
245.8 |
2.9 |
5.3 |
188.2 |
65.8 |
32.9 |
189 |
|
2021 |
165.5 |
162.4 |
3.1 |
0 |
189.4 |
-23.9 |
0 |
-125.2 |
|
DIRT |
204.2 |
198.5 |
3.1 |
2.6 |
189.4 |
14.8 |
0 |
90.9 |
|
WILL |
267.6 |
258.1 |
3.1 |
6.4 |
197.2 |
70.4 |
35.2 |
224.2 |
|
2022 |
173.5 |
170.1 |
3.4 |
0 |
198.5 |
-25 |
0 |
-150.2 |
|
DIRT |
214.4 |
207.9 |
3.4 |
3.1 |
198.5 |
15.9 |
0 |
106.8 |
|
WILL |
281.3 |
270.3 |
3.4 |
7.6 |
206.3 |
75.0 |
37.5 |
261.7 |
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.2.
3. To calculate the free DIRT estimates for DI
is necessary to multiply payroll tax revenues times 2.4/1.8 = 1.333 in 2016,
2.3/1.8 = 1.278 in 2017 and 2.2/1.8 = 1.222 in 2018 and add other revenues and
net interest for the total revenues. Total spending uses the intermediate
projection. The gross increase at end of year is total revenues minus total
spending. The Year End Balance is the net increase at end of year, (less the
postal service in WILL), plus the previous YearÕs End Balance. The WILL is
calculated by multiplying the free DIRT payroll tax revenues by 1.3. Medicare
is estimated to have a taxbase 1.33 times the size of SSAÕs because Medicare
doesnÕt have a maximum taxable limit and has some other minor sources of taxbase
that are not readily available to SSA. Wherefore, the estimate of 1.3 times the
free DIRT payroll tax is made and total revenues are recalculated. Not to lose
all the peopleÕs money to the federal deficit the high cost scenario is used in
the WILL total spending projections to benefit the poor, while the intermediate
revenue projections continue to be used as a baseline for revenues, to ensure a
conservative estimate. Interest is estimated at 3.4% of the previous yearÕs
Year-end balance. Revenues from the DI WILL are expected to be so high that the
surplus revenues must be shared. Therefore, after paying the high cost
projection and sharing with the US Postal Service $20 billion (2014) + 2%
annual growth until 2020, if revenues allow, when the General Fund would share
the surplus 50/50 and pay for USPS. In deciding on the optimal free DIRT tax
rate one must adjust the rate in 2018 to prevent a deficit in the OASI account.
In the WILL OASI shall become responsible for paying for SSI in 2017. SSI
growth should be estimated highly, at around 5% annual growth from $70 billion
in 2017. The cost of SSI is added to the high estimate that happens to be in
the low-cost future in Table IV.A.1. Interest is estimated at 3.4% of previous
Year-end Balance. OASI high cost projections and SSI costs are added in the
WILL to create Gross Cost. Total revenues are subtracted by gross costs to give
gross increase at end of year. There is a 90% federal share until 2020 when it
will be renegotiated from this 75% share through 2022. The Year-end Balance is
sum of gross increase year end, less the federal share plus the previous yearÕs
Year-end Balance. The free DIRT Act reduces OASI revenues by multiplying
current payroll taxes times 10.0/10.6= 0.944, 10.1/10.6 = 0.953 in 2017, 10.2/10.6
= 0.962 in 2018, and adding other revenues and net interest.
OASI Trust Fund;
Current, Free Dirt and WILL 2015-2022
|
Year |
Total Rev. |
Pay- roll Tax |
Other Rev. |
Net Int. |
OASI Cost |
SSI Cost |
Gross Cost |
Gross Increase |
Federal Share |
Year End Balance |
|
2015 |
816.8 |
691.1 |
31 |
94.7 |
758.7 |
0 |
758.7 |
58.1 |
0 |
2,783.7 |
|
2016 |
858.8 |
729.2 |
33.9 |
95.7 |
807.5 |
0 |
807.5 |
51.3 |
0 |
2,835.0 |
|
DIRT 10.0 |
817.5 |
687.9 |
33.9 |
95.7 |
807.5 |
0 |
807.5 |
10 |
0 |
2,793.7 |
|
2017 |
907.4 |
773.5 |
37.5 |
96.4 |
861.1 |
0 |
861.1 |
46.3 |
0 |
2,881.3 |
|
DIRT 10.1 |
869.7 |
737.0 |
37.5 |
95.2 |
861.1 |
0 |
861.1 |
8.6 |
0 |
2,802.3 |
|
WILL |
1,090.8 |
958.1 |
37.5 |
95.2 |
880.2 |
70 |
950.2 |
140.6 |
126.5 |
2,807.8 |
|
2018 |
959.6 |
820.7 |
40.9 |
98.0 |
920.5 |
0 |
920.5 |
39.1 |
0 |
2,920.4 |
|
DIRT 10.2 |
926.1 |
789.7 |
40.9 |
95.5 |
920.5 |
0 |
920.5 |
5.6 |
0 |
2,793.9 |
|
WILL |
1,163.2 |
1,027 |
40.9 |
95.7 |
949.7 |
73.5 |
1,023 |
140.2 |
126.2 |
2,821.8 |
|
2019 |
1,009.8 |
865.8 |
44.7 |
99.3 |
985.1 |
0 |
985.1 |
24.7 |
0 |
2,945.1 |
|
DIRT |
973.5 |
833.1 |
44.7 |
95.7 |
985.1 |
0 |
985.1 |
-11.6 |
0 |
2,796.3 |
|
WILL |
1,223.9 |
1,083 |
44.7 |
96.2 |
1,024 |
77.2 |
1,101 |
122.9 |
110.6 |
2,834.1 |
|
2020 |
1,059.6 |
910.9 |
48.6 |
100.1 |
1,055 |
0 |
1,055 |
4.6 |
0 |
2,949.7 |
|
DIRT |
1,020.4 |
876.5 |
48.6 |
95.3 |
1.055 |
0 |
1,055 |
-34.6 |
0 |
2,761.7 |
|
WILL |
1,284.7 |
1,140 |
48.6 |
96.6 |
1,103 |
81.0 |
1,184 |
100.7 |
50.3 |
2,884.4 |
|
2021 |
1,109.4 |
956.5 |
52.6 |
100.3 |
1,123 |
0 |
1,123 |
-13.6 |
0 |
2,936.1 |
|
DIRT |
1,067.1 |
920.4 |
52.6 |
94.1 |
1,123 |
0 |
1,123 |
-55.9 |
0 |
2,705.8 |
|
WILL |
1,347.4 |
1,196.5 |
52.6 |
98.3 |
1,183 |
85.1 |
1,268 |
79.4 |
39.7 |
2,924.1 |
|
2022 |
1,158.5 |
1,001.8 |
56.9 |
99.8 |
1,197 |
0 |
1,197 |
-38.5 |
0 |
2,897.6 |
|
DIRT |
1.113.1 |
964.0 |
56.9 |
92.2 |
1,197 |
0 |
1,197 |
-83.9 |
0 |
2,621.9 |
|
WILL |
1,409.8 |
1,253.2 |
56.9 |
99.7 |
1,270 |
89.3 |
1,359 |
50.8 |
25.4 |
2,949.5 |
Source: Goss '15 Table IV.A.1. Correction: (1)
Interest is recalculated at a uniform 3.4% rate. (2) High cost estimated for
the WILL are found in the low-cost projections.
3. Two errors have been detected, in the 2014
OASI Trust Fund Table IV.A.1, and at least one more is suspected. First, the
rate of interest had to be normalized at the arbitrary net interest rate of
3.4%, thus changing future total OASI revenues, gross increase and Year-end
balance; so as not to be overly pessimistic about the Free DIRT Act, that seems
to be more accurately projected than that of the 2014 Annual Report. Second,
the high expenditure figures are misplaced in the low-cost projection. Because
they are higher than the intermediate projections these low-cost projections
are used to describe expanded SSA spending under the WILL Act. This is the
first time that any hacking has been detected in the Annual Report of the OASDI
Trustees. This is very trying on the mental health of the analyst swayed by
high OASI and feudal DI estimates. Comprehension at the moment of the
publication has so far been at absolute zero, a number that hasnÕt even yet
been invested by our non-Palestine Supreme Court compensating Actuary. SSA
Actuaries must first redo the DI Trust Fund Table A.2 using Arabic numeral 0
and negative numbers. Second, from a credible starting date, the Actuary must
redo the OASI Trust Fund Table IV A.1 at an interest rate of their own
declaration. Third, they must recalculate the combined OASDI Trust Fund Table
IV A.3. Fourth, the SSA Actuaries must come to agreement with the 2.3% DI 10.1%
rate of taxation until 2018 when it changes to 2.2% DI and 10.1%, under penalty
of having to calculate, for the sake of comparison, half a dozen Òpain in the
OASDI tax ratesÓ that takes a week, so make sure to sit up straight on a soft
cushion. Under the proposed OASI tax rate a deficit would not appear in the
OASI account until 2019. Saving the DI trust fund, at no cost to taxpayers, by
reallocating the FICA, moves the first expected deficit in the OASI account
from 2022 to 2019. Although the 10.2 OASI 2.2 DI rate seems to be a better
expression from 2018 there is no half a percent that can save both OASI and DI
from a deficit in 2019. OASI is much better able to bear the costs of a deficit
than the much smaller DI Trust Fund.
OASDI Trust Funds: Current, Free DIRT and WILL 2015-2022
|
OASI |
DI |
OASDI |
||||||||||||
|
Year |
Total Rev. |
Gross Cost |
Gross Increase |
Total Rev. |
Gross Cost |
Gross Increase |
Total Rev. |
Gross Cost |
Gross Increase |
|
||||
|
2015 |
816.8 |
758.7 |
58.1 |
121.2 |
151.0 |
-29.8 |
938.0 |
909.7 |
28.3 |
|
||||
|
2016 |
858.8 |
807.5 |
51.3 |
125.8 |
155.8 |
-30.0 |
984.6 |
963.3 |
21.3 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
824.5 |
807.5 |
17 |
161.2 |
155.8 |
5.4 |
985.7 |
963.3 |
22.4 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
824.5 |
807.5 |
17 |
208.7 |
161.0 |
47.7 |
1,033.2 |
968.5 |
64.7 |
|
||||
|
2017 |
907.4 |
861.1 |
46.3 |
133.6 |
161.2 |
-27.6 |
1,041 |
1,022 |
18.7 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
869.7 |
861.1 |
8.6 |
171.3 |
161.2 |
10.1 |
1,041 |
1,022 |
18.7 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,090.8 |
950.2 |
140.6 |
222.4 |
167.3 |
55.1 |
1,313.2 |
1,117.5 |
195.7 |
|
||||
|
2018 |
959.6 |
920.5 |
39.1 |
141.9 |
167.1 |
-25.2 |
1,101.5 |
1,087.6 |
13.9 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
926.1 |
920.5 |
5.6 |
174.4 |
167.1 |
7.3 |
1,100.5 |
1,087.6 |
12.9 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,163.2 |
1,023 |
140.2 |
226.9 |
173.9 |
53 |
1,390.1 |
1,196.9 |
193.2 |
|
||||
|
2019 |
1,009.8 |
985.1 |
24.7 |
149.7 |
173.6 |
-23.9 |
1,159.5 |
1,158.7 |
0.8 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
973.5 |
985.1 |
-11.6 |
184 |
173.6 |
10.4 |
1,157.5 |
1,158.7 |
-1.2 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,223.9 |
1,101 |
122.9 |
240.2 |
180.9 |
59.3 |
1,464.1 |
1,281.9 |
182.2 |
|
||||
|
2020 |
1,059.6 |
1,055 |
4.6 |
157.6 |
180.6 |
-23 |
1,217.2 |
1,235.6 |
-18.4 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
1,020.4 |
1,055 |
-34.6 |
194.1 |
180.6 |
13.5 |
1,214.5 |
1,235.6 |
-31.1 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,284.7 |
1,184 |
100.7 |
254.0 |
188.2 |
65.8 |
1,538.7 |
1,372.2 |
166.5 |
|
||||
|
2021 |
1,109.4 |
1,123 |
-13.6 |
165.5 |
189.4 |
-23.9 |
1,274.9 |
1,312.4 |
-37.5 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
1,067.1 |
1,123 |
-55.9 |
204.2 |
189.4 |
14.8 |
1,271.3 |
1,312.4 |
-41.1 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,347.4 |
1,268 |
79.4 |
267.6 |
197.2 |
70.4 |
1,615 |
1,465.2 |
149.8 |
|
||||
|
2022 |
1,158.5 |
1,197 |
-38.5 |
173.5 |
198.5 |
-25 |
1,332 |
1,395.5 |
-63.5 |
|
||||
|
DIRT |
1.113.1 |
1,197 |
-83.9 |
214.4 |
198.5 |
15.9 |
1,327.5 |
1,395.5 |
-68 |
|
||||
|
WILL |
1,409.8 |
1,359 |
50.8 |
281.3 |
206.3 |
75.0 |
1,691.1 |
1,565.3 |
125.8 |
|
||||
Source: 2014 Annual Report of the Trustees Table
IV.A1 recalculated at 3.4% interest rate plus DI Table IV.A2 independent of the
one year retardation of OASDI Table A3.
4. Even adjusting for a uniform 3.4% rate of
interest, OASI high estimates defy logic. According to math derived from 2015
Annual Report data, keeping the DI trust fund solvent to sustain interest
earnings causes OASDI a slight loss, although adjusting the OASDI tax rate is
obviously a zero sum game. The free DIRT Act alone will cause an OASDI deficit
in 2019 instead of 2020 by a margin of error less than $2 billion. The OASDI
tax reallocation equation will need to be re-addressed in 2020, if Congress
wishes to grant their own tax evasion immunity, despite the damage retroactive
taxation might cause the rich, if the legislative insolvency continues to rob
the poor. Although everyone today knows the need for a Without Income Limit Law
(WILL). Because the OASI Trust Fund balance is so much larger than the DI Trust
Fund balance, the tax rate must be biased to protect the DI Trust Fund against
deficit. Ultimately, everyone agrees that by 2020 we are going to need to raise
the rate of OASDI taxation. Why we havenÕt already abolished the maximum
taxable limit on OASDI contributions is that it is more than SSA needs to
expand OASDI and SSI benefits to support ILO Holidays with Pay Convention 132
of 1970, Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention 156 of 1981 and Maternity
Protection Convention 183 of 2000. Provided that certain accounting errors are
corrected, the WILL would provide enough for the United States to produce a
long-term budget surplus to honor legitimate debts and erase fraudulent ones.
In summary Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (1) must abolish both
Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows from OMB Table 4.1; (2) must
limit military spending to less than $500 billion since 2012 as reported by the
FY 2015 defense budget, (3) Health and Human Services and ACA spending must be
limited to less than $1 trillion since 2015, at least until 2020, but possibly
forever. (4) Agency spending growth, in all other departments, must be
stabilized at not more than 3% annually, aiming for 2% agency spending growth
that provides 3% income growth.
D. Having legislated the OASDI tax rate to 2.4%
DI and 10.0% OASI in 2016, 2.3% DI and 10.1% OASI I 2017 and 2.2% DI and 10.2%
OASI in 2018; a new social security tax on the rich is the only logical legal
way for the United States to earn a budget surplus. SSA must prove their
independence, their ability to account, but the public is well aware that OASDI
can pay all the bills - SSI and the federal budget - taxing the rich, if OMB
would also allow the accounting errors of the Obama administration to be fixed.
Why wait? The accuracy of Social security accounting has newly been breeched by
the inability of the Actuary to adjust the OASDI tax rate in time to save the
DI trust fund from certain depletion in 2016. Even people who don't take a week
to do the OASDI tax rate math know, in terms of the Social Security fund, if it
needs shoring up, currently thereÕs a cap. ItÕs around $118,500 (2015), above
which no OASDI taxes are paid. By abolishing the OASDI Income Cap on Contributions
the United States OASDI could save and the federal budget could be balanced
with up to 90% of surplus revenues going to balance the federal budget until
2020 when 75% would. Solvency at any point in time requires that sufficient
financial resources are available to pay all scheduled benefits at that time.
Solvency is generally indicated by a positive trust fund ratio. ÒSustainable
solvencyÓ for the financing of the program under a specified set of assumptions
has been achieved when the projected trust fund ratio is positive throughout
the 75-year projection period and is either stable or rising at the end of the
period. For the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds to remain solvent throughout
the 75-year projection period it is estimated: (1) revenues would have to
increase by an amount equivalent to an immediate and permanent payroll tax rate
increase of 2.83 percentage points (from its current level of 12.40 percent to
15.23 percent; a relative increase of 22.8 percent). With a WILL OASDI may or may
not need to raise taxes in 2035 and is estimated to rise to only 13.58% of the
expanded taxable payroll in 2090.
Without Income Limit Law (WILL) Act:
To abolish the maximum taxable limit on DI
contributions on January 1, 2016 and OASI contributions January 1, 2017 and
repeal Adjustment of the contribution and benefit base Section 230 of the
Social Security Act 42USC(7)¤430.To require the Social Security Administration
to pay for SSI Costs beginning January 1, 2017.
To share profits in excess of social security
program costs to the general fund of the U.S Treasury on a sliding scale
beginning in 2017 DI 50/50 prioritizing the $22 billion + 2% annual growth cost
of USPS, and OASI 10/90 to eliminate the federal budget deficit. In 2020 OASI
would share at negotiated rates an estimated 25/75, in 2025 OASDI would share
50/50 and by 2030 75/25 and at 2035 OASDI would take all to pay for the peak in
costs of Baby Boomer generation and might need to raise the overall OASDI tax
rate. The rich must be taxed 33 percent of their income to benefit the poor
without any new OASDI taxes for the middle and working classes, ever. Direct
profit-sharing with the General Fund from an OASDI FICA tax without maximum
taxable limit must only be allowed if it is scientifically proven, as it is in
this document, that profit sharing with the General Fund would both completely
balance the federal budget, producing a federal on-budget surplus and finance
SSA, including SSI and administration, with at least 10% of surplus profit, so
the OASDI trust funds and beneficiary population are guaranteed to grow
off-budget. There is no need to delay taxing the rich 33 percent of their
income. Instead of a maximum taxable limit there should be a maximum allowable
on-budget federal deficit.
Without Income Limit Law OASDI 2016-2020
(in billions of
dollars)
|
Payroll Tax Estimate |
Without Income Limit Law |
Total New Rev. |
New SSI and Ad. costs |
Net Rev. |
Max. Deficit |
OMB Budget Deficit |
|
|
2016 |
853.0 |
1,143.0 |
n/a |
-531 |
|||
|
2017 |
904.9 |
1,212.6 |
307.7 |
75.7 |
232 |
-208.8 |
-458 |
|
2018 |
960.0 |
1,286.4 |
326.4 |
78.7 |
247.7 |
-222.9 |
-413 |
|
2019 |
1,012.9 |
1,357.3 |
344.4 |
81.9 |
262.5 |
-236.3 |
-503 |
|
2020 |
1,065.5 |
1,427.8 |
362.3 |
85.2 |
277.1 |
-249.4 |
-550 |
Source: SSA Õ14 Table IV.A3 Pg. 46 Intermediate
Projection
2. The WILL would expand the taxbase by 130% without
increasing the overall 12.4% rate of taxation simply by taxing the rich. The
time to tax the rich is now. The federal government needs revenues to balance
the budget. It is necessary that the rich have time to revise their budgets.
Congress must not delay taxing people as rich as themselves the adjusted 2.4%
DI tax on their entire income all calendar year 2016 beginning January 1, 2016.
In FY2017 Congress could begin to tax the rich the full 12.4% OASDI tax on all
of their income and SSA would pay for SSI and their own administrative costs.
For Congressmembers whose base wage has been $174,000 without increase since
Obama took office that comes to nearly $1,300 for the DI trust fund and $6,900
for OASDI.
E. SSA was corrupted by the $674 SSI payments
without COLA from 2009-2011. Overpayment decisions of 2011 were ruled illegal
by the Social Security Caucus. An underpayment must be made to return social
security disability and state retirement beneficiaries the benefits that were
wrongfully taken from them under color of law. In no circumstance should a
person be threatened with $600-$699 a month for more than 42 months (Revelation
13:10) when their benefits automatically increase to $700 from whence the Cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) accrues. That Commissioner left SSA with a profound respect
for the communist violence of lawyers in social office, without exercising the
UN Charter right of all peoples, including social-workers, to
self-determination, and losing every case to the conspiracy civil rights
criminals disempowering both the Social Security Act and the Constitution with
mathematically proven mental disability that would be severe, as in grounds for
dismissal, if there were any justice in the Obama administration that killed
Osama bin Laden to allow a Harvard criminal to keep office instead of be
replaced by a black regional commissioner in the privately cased Social
Security Caucus of 2011 when the optimal 2.4% rate of disability taxation was
first calculated, before being forgotten by the Actuarial 2.7% propaganda, and
remembered at a 2.3% rate in December 2014 before going up to 2.4% when
Congress failed to pass the 2.3% Free DIRT Act.
1. SSA is familiar with retroactive accounting
for overpayments and underpayments resulting from erroneous decisions under
Sec. 204 of the Social Security Act 42USC(7)II¤404. This law has
become one of SSA's favorite methods of deprivation of rights under color of
law against beneficiary underpayment complaints and attempts at unionization,
whom they are threaten to kill or capture without any regard for the 42 month
limit on such persecutions regarding the 'number of the beast' 666 (Revelation
13:10). Sec. 204(c) of the Social Security Act 42USC¤404(c) logically provides
the economic law that unlike the faultless beneficiaries they rob, officials
who make wrongful overpayment decisions are not entitled to immunity like officials
who find for underpayment. Not even the stare decisis of the Supreme
Court is immune from the error they made attempting to legitimize the robbing
of the one-time $200 emergency supplement in 2009 from beneficiaries to pay any
outstanding student loans, without their permission, in classic Harvard
overeducated treatment of backpay for litigious underpayment in Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security v. Ratliff No.
08-1322 (2010). To better understand the legal meaning of Art. I Section
9 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution that states, ÒNo Bill of Attainder or ex
post facto Law shall be passedÓ that bans retroactive laws, it may be necessary
to understand both how grudgingly back taxes are collected from tax evaders and
how free and easy it is for SSA to make underpayments to redress wrongful
overpayment decisions under Sec. 204(c) of the Social Securty Act 42USC¤404(c).
Tax fraud is a general term which can trigger many different laws found in
Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) and Title 18 of the United States Code (or
ÒUSCÓ). The core distinguishing feature of tax fraud is a taxpayerÕs intent to
defraud the government by not paying taxes the taxpayer knows are lawfully due.
Tax fraud can be punishable by both civil (i.e. money) and criminal (i.e. jail
time and money) penalties, with the civil violations primarily in Title 26 and
the criminal violations principally in Title 18, respectively, of the USC. For
example, a taxpayer can commit tax fraud and be punished with civil penalties
under 26USC¤6663, without being charged with criminal tax evasion. (a)
Imposition of penalty; If any part of any underpayment of tax required
to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an
amount equal to 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment which is
attributable to fraud. Attempts to evade or defeat tax under 26USC¤7201 occur
when; Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any
tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other
penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof,
shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation),
or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of
prosecution. Going to prison for tax evasion it obviously the cheapest way for
US constitutional officials whose starting pay is pegged to the $174,000
Congressional salary that is so dishonorable they have insanely voted down a
COLA for themselves every year since the federal budget was retroactively
defrauded in 2009. It could be said that tax evasion became law on October 1,
2015 when SSA conspired with Congress to evade the Free DIRT Act 2.3% DI and
the new tax rate that must be retroactively accounted for in calendar year 2016
is 2.4% DI and 10.0% OASI.
G. Having treated SSA's
looming felony conviction regarding the depletion of the DI trust fund, it is
necessary to treat upon the misdemeanor Òno COLAÓ civil rights crime of
deprivation of relief benefits to prevent any reenactment of Astrue's notorious
Three Years Without COLA. Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) peg to the CPI, or even the
Elderly CPI, has too badly abused the General Fund with SSI $674 (2009-2011)
for three years without COLA, that henceforth no one shall have to suffer the
cruel and unusual punishment or treatment of $600-$699 for more than 42 months
(Revelation 13:10) when benefits automatically increase to $700, and all
beneficiaries and government workers would get a 3% annual COLA. Computation of
Benefits to the Social Security Act at Section 215(i) as codified at
42USC(7)¤415(i) has been so badly abused it must be amended. Deprivation of
COLA constitutes deprivation of relief benefits against all beneficiaries.
Section 215(i)(1)(F) of the Social Security Act becomes Section 215(i)(1)(A).
The CPI linkage is not skillfully written and the meaningless labor statistic
has not only been hacked to justify cruel and unusual punishment or treatment
regarding the number of the beast but none of the Òno COLAÓ decisions followed
the letter of the law. The fall of 2015 no COLA decision failed to be justified
because the combined OASDI trust fund has a trust fund ratio, somewhere between
295% and 300%, is considerably over 20%, and the wrongly sampled CPI did not
take into consideration the much higher price of Apple computers people are
saving for after so many of their senile Windows computers died from deleted
restore points in their pursuit of sentencing the entire year of 2016 to their
jail term. It is not an excuse that SSA can't do the OASI and DI trust fund tax
rate calculus. The amended text, in its entirety to the end of Section 215(i)
as codified at 42USC(7)¤415(i) as it pertain to the Computation of Benefits,
states;
(i) Cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increases
in benefits (1) for the purposes of this section (A) the term "OASDI fund
ratio", with respect to any calendar year, means the ratio of - (i) the
combined balance in the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund as of the beginning of such year,
including the taxes transferred under section 401(a) of this title on the first
day of such year and reduced by the outstanding amount of any loan (including
interest thereon) theretofore made to either such Fund from the Federal
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund under section 401(l) of this title, to (ii) the
total amount which (as estimated by the Commissioner of Social Security) will
be paid from the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund during such calendar year for all
purposes authorized by section 401 of this title (other than payments of
interest on, or repayments of, loans from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust
Fund under section 401(l) of this title), but excluding any transfer payments
between such trust funds and reducing the amount of any transfers to the
Railroad Retirement Account by the amount of any transfers into either such
trust fund from that Account; in any calendar year for which the OASDI fund
ratio is more than 20.0 percent. (B) provided there is a combined trust
fund ratio greater than 20.0 percent (i) If the Consumer Price Index for the
Elderly exceeds for the previous year exceeds 3% retirees shall receive a
percentage increase equal to the CPI for the Elderly, for the previous year, or
(ii) if the Consumer Price Index for the previous year exceeds 3% the disabled
shall receive a percentage increase equal to the CPI for the previous
year. (C) If the Commissioner of Social Security determines that a
calendar year is also a cost-of-living computation year, the Commissioner shall
publish a determination that a benefit increase is resultantly required and the
percentage thereof. (D) In all normal years since the 1980s inflation has been
around 3% and therefore the COLA shall be 3%.
Be it enacted in the House
and Senate Assembled
2. The free DIRT Act will cause an OASDI deficit
in 2019 instead of 2020 by a margin of error less than $2 billion. The OASDI
tax reallocation equation will need to be re-addressed in 2020. There must be
more scientific ways to calculate optimal rates other than dire necessity of
the disability beneficiary. Because the OASI Trust Fund balance is so much
larger than the DI Trust Fund balance, the tax rate must be biased to protect
the DI Trust Fund against deficit. Ultimately, everyone agrees that by 2020 we
are going to need to raise the rate of OASDI taxation. Why we havenÕt already
abolished the maximum taxable limit on OASDI contributions is probably that it
is more than SSA demands. SSA could expand OASDI and SSI benefits in support of
ILO Holidays with Pay Convention 132 of 1970, Workers with Family
Responsibilities Convention 156 of 1981 and Maternity Protection Convention 183
of 2000.At this time the projected OASDI surplus from a WILL is not enough to
satisfy official demands regarding the federal deficit. However, it is enough
for a disability beneficiary to sustainably balance the federal budget, if only
the Allowances and Other Defense Civil Programs rows were abolished from OMB
Table 4.1; military spending was limited to less than $500 billion and Health
and Human Services spending to less than $1 trillion, at least until 2020.
Agency spending growth, in all other departments, is limited to no more than 3%
annually, aiming for 2% agency growth that provides 3% income growth. Agencies
that benefit the poor may grow more rapidly, or may slow down growth to 2% or
even zero in dire emergency, but welfare benefits must never go down.
H. The trend in the United
States is an increasing income gap between the rich and the poor both domestically
and globally. In 2003 the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of
corporate wealth, up from 53.4 percent the year before. The top groupÕs share
of corporate wealth has grown by half since 1991, when it was 38.7 percent. In
2003, incomes in the top 1 percent of households ranged from $237,000 to
several billion dollars. For every group below the top 1 percent, shares of
corporate wealth have declined since 1991. These declines ranged from 12.7
percent for those on the 96th to 99th rungs on the income ladder to 57 percent
for the poorest fifth of Americans, who made less than $16,300 and together
owned 0.6 percent of corporate wealth in 2003, down from 1.4 percent in 1991.
There appears to be a relationship between unusually high per capita income and
high numbers of people living below the poverty line. For instance, the District of Columbia claims both the highest per
capita income in the nation and the highest percentage of people living below
the poverty line at 20.2 percent and highest rate of incarceration in the world
at 1,500 per 100,000 in 2005. Long-term capital gains were taxed at 28 percent until 1997, and
at 20 percent until 2003, when rates were cut to 15 percent. The top rate on
dividends was cut to 15 percent from 35 percent that year. The rich must be
taxed.
1. As America slipped into economic depression
following the Crash of 1929, unemployment exceeded 25% and about 10,000 banks
failed. The Gross National Product declined from $105 billion in 1929 to only
$55 billion in 1932. In 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient
income to be self-supporting. The first social security identification cards
were issued in 1936. Taxes were collected for the first time in January 1937
and the first one-time, lump-sum payments were made that same month. Regular
ongoing monthly benefits started in January 1940. In the past 50 years, the US
has been largely successful at reducing the poverty rate. In
the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5
million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s,
reaching a low of 11.1%, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next
decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6%, but it began to
rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen
to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2%. For the next ten years, the poverty rate
remained above 12.8%, increasing to 15.1%, or 39.3 million individuals, by
1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by
2000. Since then, it has risen each year. In 2005 it was estimated that 35
million people live below the poverty line, 13.2% of the population. The U.S.
Census Bureau assessed the impact of the Great Recession and found income
inequality has skyrocketed. The full impact of the
recession of 2008 on poverty is not yet known. The first year of the Great Recession dealt a
sharp blow to middle-class families. In the 1970s the top 1% only made
something like 8% of total income. In the 1980s it rose to 10 to 14%. In the
late 1990s it was 15% to 19%. In 2005 it passed 21%. And in 2007 the top 1%
received 23% of all the income earned in the country. 80% of all new income
earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1%. The top one percent owns more
wealth than the bottom 90%. The wealthiest 400 Americans now earn an average of
$345 million a year and pay an effective tax rate of 16.6%, on average. In 2003
the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5% of corporate wealth, up from 53.4%
the year before, up 200% since 1991, when it was 38.7% in 1991. In 2003,
incomes in the top 1 percent of households ranged from $237,000 to several
billion dollars. During the eight years of President Bush, the wealthiest 400
American families saw their income more than double while their income tax
rates dropped almost in half from 1995 to 2007. In 2005 one out of every four
large corporations in the US paid no federal income tax on revenues of $1.1
trillion. From 1998 to 2005, two out of every three corporations paid no
federal income taxes. Worse poverty seems to increasing.
2. National poverty is measured as the number
of people who live below the poverty line, below which a person would be
expected to suffer from hunger as the result of the market prices of room and
board. Unemployment, the number of people actively looking for work, is also a
significant indicator of national poverty, however the real employment figures
which indicate the percentage of the population that is actually employed is
less arbitrary. In 2005 it was estimated that 35-37 million people lived below
the poverty line in the USA, 12.6-13.2% of the population, 4.7% were unemployed
with a labor force participation rate of 66%. Census data shows that in 2010,
46.2 million Americans lived below the poverty line, and 63 million lived below
130% of the poverty line, SNAPÕs gross income limit. Since the economic
recession the number of people living below the poverty has increased 13.6%. In
2005 37 million, 13.2% of the population lived below the poverty line and in
2010 this number rose to 46.3 million, 15.1% of the population.
Poverty Thresholds, Weighted Average, Annual and Monthly 2004,
2011
|
Family Type |
Family Type |
Annual |
Monthly |
Family Type |
Annual |
Monthly |
|
Single Individual |
Under 65 years |
$ 9,827 |
$ 819 |
1 person |
$11,170 |
$930 |
|
65 years & older |
$ 9,060 |
$ 756 |
2 people |
$15,130 |
$1,260 |
|
|
Single Parent |
One child |
$ 13,020 |
$ 1,085 |
3 people |
$19,090 |
$1,590 |
|
Two children |
$ 15,219 |
$ 1,268 |
4 people |
$23,050 |
$1,920 |
|
|
Two Adults |
No children |
$ 12,649 |
$ 1,054 |
5 people |
$27,010 |
$2,250 |
|
One child |
$ 15,205 |
$ 1,267 |
6 people |
$30,970 |
$2,580 |
|
|
Two children |
$ 19,157 |
$ 1,596 |
7 people |
$34,930 |
$2,910 |
|
|
Three children |
$ 22,543 |
$ 1,879 |
8 people |
$38,890 |
$3,240 |
I. There is an emerging view that poverty
constitutes a denial or non-fulfillment of human rights. The capability
approach defines poverty as the absence or inadequate realization of certain
basic freedoms, such as the freedoms to avoid hunger, disease, illiteracy, and
so on. Wealth by itself does not promote democracy if the wealth is controlled
by the state or small ruling elite. A resource-rich country can have a
relatively high per capita gross domestic product, but if its natural wealth is
centrally held and does not nurture an autonomous middle class that earns its
wealth independently of the state, the prospects for political pluralism, civil
liberties, and democracy are probably no better than in a poor country without
resources. For wealth to cultivate the soil for democracy it must be produced,
retained, and controlled by a broad base of society, and for wealth to be
created in that manner, an economy must be relatively open and free. The reason
why the conception of poverty is concerned with basic freedoms is that these
are recognized as being fundamentally valuable for minimal human dignity. The
concern for human dignity also motivates the human rights approach, which
postulates that people have inalienable rights to these freedoms. Most
societies want to enjoy a steadily rising standard of living while
simultaneously protecting their membersÕ current social and economic status.
Economic growth is the pre-requisite for the former, while social security
programs are a prime mechanism for achieving the latter. In his 1941 State of
the Union Speech, Franklin Delano Roosevelt articulated that Òpeople everywhere
in the world have a right to enjoy the Four Freedoms: Freedom of Speech,
Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want and Freedom from FearÓ.
1. There is no denying that the United
States needs to ratify the International Labor Organization (ILO) Holidays with
Pay Convention (Convention 132) of 1970;
Workers with Family Responsibilities (Convention 156) of 1981, and
Maternity Protection (Convention 183) of 2000. The
most important demographic difference between 1984 and 1999 was the change in
marital status among the total U.S. population. In 1990 the number of marriages
ending in divorce stood at 50%. The number of Temporary Assistance for NF beneficiaries has declined
dramatically from a high of nearly 14.2 million in 1993 to little less than 5
million in 2003 after the Personal Responsibility and World Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 coerced families with children to work. People are
waiting longer before marriage, the number of people who never marry has
increased, and marriages are more likely to end in divorce. Today the divorce
rate remains stable at around 40 percent of marriages. In 2003 there were 12.9
million children living in poverty, or 17.6% of the under-18 population. That
was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7% of all children were in
poverty. Of 18-to-64-year olds 20.5 million, 11.1% were poor and of people 65
and older 3.6 million, 10.1% were poor. In 2011 an estimated 1 in
4 US children, 21%, were growing up in poverty, the highest rate in the
industrialized world. In Finland, the number is about 2.8%; Norway, 3.4%; Sweden, maybe
4.2%, Switzerland, 6.8%, Netherlands in second place at 9.8 percent.
2. In 2004 in the U.S. an
estimated 14 million parents had custody of 21.6 million children under 21
years of age while the other parent lived somewhere else. 28% of children live
in single parent household as the result of the dramatic increase in divorce
rate to 50% of all marriages in the 1990s. In 1999 there were 2.2 million
marriages and 1.1 million divorces. Only 10% of children living with both
parents were below the poverty line whereas 40% living with only one parent
were below the poverty line. Children living only with their mothers were twice
as likely to live in poverty as those living only with their fathers. In 2001,
6.9 million custodial parents were due an average of $5,000. An aggregate of
$34.9 billion of payments were due and about $21.9 billion (62.6%) were
received, averaging $3,200 per custodial-parent family, another $900 million
were volunteered by parents without current awards or agreements. Average income
for a family of four in the overall U.S. population, when adjusted for
inflation and put into 1999 dollars, increased from about $50,000 in 1984
to $60,000 in 1999. Real median household income in the United States rose by
1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, reaching $46,326. The overall U.S. home
ownership rate increased slightly, from about 64 percent in 1984 to about
67 percent in 1999. There were 7.7 million families in poverty in 2005,
statistically unchanged from 2004. The poverty rate for families declined from
10.2 percent in 2004 to 9.9 percent in 2005.
3. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic
whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004). The poverty rate for all blacks and Hispanics remained
near 30% during the 1980s and mid-1990s. Thereafter it began to fall. In 2000,
the rate for blacks dropped to 22.1-24.9% and for Hispanics to 21.2 percent-
the lowest rate for both groups since the United States began measuring
poverty. At the same time the poverty rate increased for Asians (11.1 percent in 2005, up
from 9.8 percent in 2004). For White families in America, the average median
net worth is $87,000. For Hispanic families, it is $8,000. For African-American
families, it is $5,000. That is including home equity, or home ownership.
Without home ownership, the net worth for African-American families falls to
$1,000. In 1979, the average central city poverty
rate was 15.7%, at its highest point, in 1993, it was 21.5%, by 2001 it was
16.5%, but was still over twice the rate for the suburbs, 8.2%. Poverty
in rural areas is not negligible either; in 2001, 14.2% of people living
outside metropolitan areas were poor. Among the states, New Mexico had the
largest percentage of individuals in poverty; from 1998 to 2000 it was 19.3%.
Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Hampshire had the lowest
poverty rates among statesÑbelow 8% from 1998 to 2000.
State Poverty
and Unemployment Rates 2004 & 2010
|
State Law |
Population |
Per capita |
Number of poor |
% Poor |
Unem- ployed |
|
2004 |
295,882,240 |
$21,587 |
33,899,812 |
12.4% |
5.5% |
|
2010 |
308,745,538 |
$39,937 |
46,215,956 |
15.3% |
9.6% |
|
Alabama 2004 |
4,500,752 |
$18,189 |
698,097 |
16.1% |
5.6% |
|
2010 |
4,779,736 |
$33,504 |
883,078 |
18.9 |
9.3% |
|
2004 |
648,818 |
$22,660 |
57,602 |
9.4% |
7.5% |
|
2010 |
710,231 |
$44,233 |
76,850 |
11.0% |
7.9% |
|
2004 |
5,580,811 |
$20,275 |
698,669 |
13.9% |
5.0% |
|
2010 |
6,392,017 |
$34,539 |
1,105,075 |
17.6% |
10.0% |
|
2004 |
2,725,714 |
$16,904 |
411,777 |
15.8% |
5.7% |
|
2010 |
2,915,918 |
$32,805 |
529,710 |
18.7% |
7.8% |
|
2004 |
35,484,453 |
$22,711 |
4,706,130 |
14.2% |
6.2% |
|
2010 |
37,253,956 |
$42,514 |
5,785,036 |
15.8% |
12.4% |
|
2004 |
4,550,688 |
$24,049 |
388,952 |
9.3% |
5.5% |
|
2010 |
5,029,196 |
$42,295 |
651,744 |
13.2% |
8.8% |
|
2004 |
3,483,372 |
$28,766 |
259,514 |
7.9% |
4.9% |
|
2010 |
3,574,097 |
$54,239 |
348,881 |
10.1% |
9.1% |
|
2004 |
817,491 |
$23,305 |
69,901 |
9.2% |
4.1% |
|
2010 |
897,934 |
$40,097 |
104,456 |
11.9 |
8.3% |
|
2004 |
563,384 |
$28,659 |
109,500 |
20.2% |
|
|
2010 |
601,723 |
$70,710 |
107,279 |
18.8% |
9.8% |
|
2004 |
17,019,068 |
$21,557 |
1,952,629 |
12.5% |
4.8% |
|
2010 |
18,801,310 |
$38,210 |
3,048,621 |
16.5% |
11.4% |
|
2004 |
8,684,715 |
$21,154 |
1,033,793 |
13% |
4.6% |
|
2010 |
9,687,653 |
$34,747 |
1,698,004 |
18.0% |
10.0% |
|
2004 |
1,257,608 |
$21,525 |
126,154 |
10.7% |
3.3% |
|
2010 |
1,360,301 |
$41,550 |
146,923 |
11.1% |
6.6% |
|
2004 |
1,366,332 |
$17,841 |
148,732 |
11.8% |
4.7% |
|
2010 |
1,567,582 |
$31,897 |
244,009 |
15.8% |
9.3% |
|
2004 |
12,653,544 |
$23,104 |
1,291,958 |
10.7% |
6.2% |
|
2010 |
12,830,632 |
$42,040 |
1,732,129 |
13.8% |
10.3% |
|
2004 |
6,195,643 |
$20,397 |
559,484 |
9.5% |
5.2% |
|
2010 |
6,483,802 |
$33,981 |
960,402 |
15.3% |
10.3% |
|
2004 |
2,944,062 |
$19,674 |
258,008 |
9.1% |
4.8% |
|
2010 |
3,046,355 |
$38,039 |
368,965 |
12.5% |
6.1% |
|
2004 |
2,723,507 |
$20,506 |
257,829 |
9.9% |
5.5% |
|
2010 |
2,853,118 |
$38,977 |
374,677 |
13.5% |
7.0% |
|
2004 |
4,117,827 |
$18,093 |
621,096 |
15.8% |
5.3% |
|
2010 |
4,339,367 |
$32,316 |
796,208 |
18.9% |
10.3% |
|
2004 |
4,496,334 |
$16,912 |
851,113 |
19.6% |
5.7% |
|
2010 |
4,533,372 |
$37,039 |
831,512 |
18.8% |
7.5% |
|
2004 |
1,305,728 |
$19,533 |
135,501 |
10.9% |
4.6% |
|
2010 |
1,328,361 |
$36,763 |
169,076 |
13.1% |
7.9% |
|
2004 |
5,508,909 |
$25,614 |
438,676 |
8.5% |
4.2% |
|
2010 |
5,773,552 |
$49,023 |
559,937 |
9.9% |
7.4% |
|
2004 |
6,433,422 |
$25,952 |
573,421 |
9.3% |
5.1% |
|
2010 |
6,547,629 |
$51,304 |
724,845 |
11.4% |
8.4% |
|
2004 |
10,079,985 |
$22,168 |
1,021,605 |
10.5% |
7.1% |
|
2010 |
9,883,640 |
$34,714 |
1,614,110 |
16.7% |
12.6% |
|
2004 |
5,059,375 |
$23,198 |
380,476 |
7.9% |
4.7% |
|
2010 |
5,303,925 |
$42,798 |
595,485 |
11.5% |
7.3% |
|
2004 |
2,881,281 |
$15,853 |
548,079 |
19.9% |
6.2% |
|
2010 |
2,967,297 |
$31,071 |
644,156 |
22.4% |
10.3% |
|
Missouri 2004 |
5,704,484 |
$19,936 |
637,891 |
11.7% |
5.7% |
|
2010 |
5,988,927 |
$36,799 |
888,471 |
15.3% |
9.5% |
|
2004 |
917,621 |
$17,151 |
128,355 |
14.6% |
4.4% |
|
2010 |
989,415 |
$35,053 |
146,257 |
15.2% |
7.2% |
|
2004 |
1,739,291 |
$19,613 |
161,269 |
9.7% |
3.8% |
|
2010 |
1,826,341 |
$39,534 |
224,530 |
12.6% |
4.6% |
|
2004 |
2,241,154 |
$21,989 |
205,685 |
10.5% |
4.3% |
|
2010 |
2,700,551 |
$36,938 |
393,605 |
14.8% |
14.9% |
|
New Hampshire 2004 |
1,287,687 |
$23,844 |
78,530 |
6.5% |
3.8% |
|
2010 |
1,316,470 |
$43,698 |
110,096 |
8.6% |
6.0% |
|
New Jersey 2004 |
8,638,396 |
$27,006 |
699,668 |
8.5% |
4.8% |
|
2010 |
8,791,894 |
$51,139 |
883,643 |
10.2% |
9.5% |
|
New Mexico 2004 |
1,874,614 |
$17,261 |
328,933 |
18.4% |
5.7% |
|
2010 |
2,059,179 |
$33,342 |
400,779 |
19.8% |
8.4% |
|
New York 2004 |
19,190,115 |
$23,389 |
2,692,202 |
14.6% |
5.8% |
|
2010 |
19,378,102 |
$48,596 |
2,840,564 |
15.0% |
8.6% |
|
North Carolina 2004 |
8,407,248 |
$20,307 |
958,667 |
12.3% |
5.5% |
|
2010 |
9,535,483 |
$35,007 |
1,618,597 |
17.4% |
10.5% |
|
North Dakota 2004 |
633,837 |
$17,769 |
73,457 |
11.9% |
3.4% |
|
2010 |
672,591 |
$42,890 |
81,176 |
12.5% |
3.9% |
|
Ohio 2004 |
11,435,798 |
$21,003 |
1,170,698 |
10.6% |
6.1% |
|
2010 |
11,536,504 |
$36,162 |
1,771,404 |
15.8% |
10.1% |
|
Oklahoma 2004 |
3,511,532 |
$17,646 |
491,235 |
14.7% |
4.8% |
|
2010 |
3,751,351 |
$35,389 |
613,067 |
16.8% |
7.0% |
|
Oregon 2004 |
3,559,596 |
$20,940 |
388,740 |
11.6% |
7.4% |
|
2010 |
3,831,074 |
$36,317 |
596,649 |
15.8% |
10.8% |
|
Pennsylvania 2004 |
12,365,455 |
$20,880 |
1,304,117 |
11% |
5.5% |
|
2010 |
12,702,379 |
$40,604 |
1,645,097 |
13.4% |
8.7% |
|
Rhode Island 2004 |
1,076,164 |
$21,688 |
120,548 |
11.9% |
5.2% |
|
2010 |
1,052,567 |
$41,995 |
143,132 |
14.1% |
11.6% |
|
South Carolina 2004 |
4,147,152 |
$18,795 |
547,869 |
14.1% |
6.8% |
|
2010 |
4,625,364 |
$32,462 |
813,939 |
18.1% |
11.0% |
|
South Dakota 2004 |
764,309 |
$17,562 |
95,900 |
13.2% |
3.5% |
|
2010 |
814,180 |
$39,519 |
114,798 |
14.6% |
4.7% |
|
Tennessee 2004 |
5,841,748 |
$19,393 |
746,789 |
13.5% |
5.4% |
|
2010 |
6,346,105 |
$34,921 |
1,102,643 |
17.8% |
9.6% |
|
Texas 2004 |
22,118,509 |
$19,617 |
3,117,609 |
15.4% |
6.1% |
|
2010 |
25,145,561 |
$37,747 |
4,411,273 |
17.9% |
8.1% |
|
Utah 2004 |
2,351,467 |
$18,185 |
206,328 |
9.4% |
5.2% |
|
2010 |
2,763,885 |
$32,517 |
362,689 |
13.3% |
7.7% |
|
Vermont 2004 |
619,107 |
$20,625 |
55,506 |
9.4% |
3.7% |
|
2010 |
625,741 |
$40,134 |
74,720 |
12.4% |
6.2% |
|
Virginia 2004 |
7,386,330 |
$23,975 |
656,641 |
9.6% |
3.7% |
|
2010 |
8,001,024 |
$44,267 |
865,746 |
11.1% |
6.9% |
|
Washington 2004 |
6,131,445 |
$22,973 |
612,370 |
10.6% |
6.2% |
|
2010 |
6,724,540 |
$42,589 |
890,251 |
13.5% |
9.5% |
|
West Virginia 2004 |
1,810,354 |
$16,477 |
315,794 |
17.9% |
5.3% |
|
2010 |
1,852,994 |
$32,042 |
327,459 |
18.2% |
8.9% |
|
Wisconsin 2004 |
5,472,299 |
$21,271 |
451,538 |
8.7% |
4.9% |
|
2010 |
5,686,986 |
$38,225 |
731,564 |
13.2% |
8.3% |
|
Wyoming 2004 |
501,242 |
$19,134 |
54,777 |
11.4% |
3.9% |
|
2010 |
563,626 |
$44,961 |
62,636 |
11.4% |
7.0% |
Source: , U.S. Census; Table 1 Population Change
for the United States 2000-2010. Bureau of
Economic Analyses Per Capita 2008-2010, U.S. Census Bureau Personal Income All
Ages in Poverty 2010, National Conference of State Legislatures State
Unemployment 2010
4. The poverty rates of persons age 65 and over
dropped from 35.1 percent in 1959 to 9.1 percent in 2012, according to the
official poverty measure. The median income for elderly households rose from
$23,124 in 1960 to $34,832 in 2013. More than 75 percent of the income going to
the bottom 60 percent of senior households Ð those with than $35,393 in income
in 2012 Ð comes from Social Security. Social Security is also, by far, the most
important income source going to the 20 percent of senior households with
incomes between $35,493 and $63,648. An uptick since the mid-1990s in the labor
force participation of seniors, especially those age 65 to 75. Women comprise
56 percent of Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and over, and almost 67
percent of beneficiaries age 85 and older. Single women age 65 and older
received 50.4 percent of their income from Social Security, compared to 35.9
percent of single men and 32 percent for elderly couples. Without Social
Security the poverty rate in older women would increase from the 11 percent to
48 percent. While the poverty rate for a married couple over the age of 65 is
only 5.4 percent, the poverty rate for a woman living alone is 18.9 percent. In
2012 among beneficiary households with at least one person age 65 or over,
Social Security provides at least 90 percent of the income for 46 percent of
African Americans, 53 percent of Latinos, and 44 percent of Asians. Without
Social Security, the poverty rate among African American seniors would triple,
from 17 to 50 percent, and the poverty rate among Hispanic American senior
would rise from 19 to 50 percent.
5. The vast majority of Social Security retirees
in 2009 Ð 2 million out of 2.7 million Ð accepted permanently reduced benefits
before reaching the full retirement age of 66. Nearly half, 1.3 million,
accepted these benefits at age 62, when benefit reductions are the largest.
Twenty-seven percent of all workers age 60 to 61 report a Òwork-limiting health
conditionÓ, with higher percentages reported for minority workers 36.5 percent
of African Americans and 31.5 percent of Latinos. Moreover, 45 percent of
workers age 58 and older work in jobs that are either physically demanding or
have other difficult working conditions. Social SecurityÕs companion program,
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) plays an important role in assisting the
most low-income elderly persons. In 2014, SSI provided a federal income
guarantee of up to $721 a month for individuals and $1,082 for couples to
roughly 8.4 million low-income, severely disabled, blind or aged (65 and over)
people. Adjusted for inflation, out-of-pocket expenditures of seniors grew from
$3,865 in 1992 to $5,197 in 2010, consuming more than one-third, or 37 percent
of the average Social Security benefit by 2010. Since 1984, up to 50 percent of
Social Security benefits have been counted as taxable income for individuals
with incomes in excess of $25,000; $32,000 for couples. Since 1993,
additionally, up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits have been taxed for
some individuals with incomes in excess of $34,000; $44,000 for couples.
6. The National Alliance for Caregiving
estimates that 65.7 million people provides unpaid care to functionally
disabled children or adults in the course of 2009. In any given week of 2009,
AARPÕs Public Policy Institute reports that 42.1 million people age 18 or older
provides an average of 18.4 hours of care to functionally disabled adults and
that 61.6 million family caregivers provides such care at some point in 2009.
Subsequently caregiving subsidies suffered massive cuts. Caregivers are
predominantly females (66%). They are 48 years of age, on average. One-third
take care of two or more people (34%). A large majorityÉprovide care for a
relative (86%), with over one-third taking are of a parent (36%). One in seven
care for their own child (14%). Caregivers have been in their role for an
average of 4.6 years, with three in ten having given care to their loved one
for five years or more (31%.)ÉSeven in ten caregivers take care of someone 50
years of age or older, 14% take care of an adult age 18 to 49, while 14% take
are of a child under the age of 18. Caregiving is depressing.
J. In 1941, Roosevelt's State of the Union
address advanced Òfour freedomsÓ: In the future days, which we seek to make
secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression Ð everywhere in the world. The
second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way Ð everywhere
in the world. The third is freedom from want Ð which, translated into world
terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a
healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants Ð everywhere in the world. The
fourth is freedom from fear Ð which, translated into world terms, means
worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion
that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression
against any neighbor Ð anywhere in the world. In his state of the Union address
of 1944, Roosevelt expanded on the Òfreedom from wantÓ theme by outlining what
he called a Second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and
prosperity can be established for all Ð regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries
or shops or farms or mines of the nation; The right to earn enough to provide
adequate food and clothing and recreation; The right of every farmer to raise
and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent
living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at
home or abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to
adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; The
right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness,
accident and unemployment; The right to a good education.
1. Inseparable from the goals projected by the
historic 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, A Freedom Budget for
All Americans was advanced in 1966 by A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and
Martin Luther King Jr., central leaders of the activist wing of the civil
rights movement in the 1950s and '60s. It promised the full and final triumph
of the civil rights movement. This was to be achieved by going beyond civil
rights, linking the goal of racial justice for African-Americans with the goal
of economic justice for Americans. The Freedom budget proposal projected the
elimination of poverty within a ten-year period, the creation of full
employment and decent housing, health care, and education for all people in our
society as a matter of right. The Freedom Budget was an 84- page document,
complete with statistics, charts graphs, and a discussion of methodology. A
popularized 20-page summary was prepared that contained an introduction by
Martin Luther King Jr. who believed that Òthe ultimate answer tot he Negroes'
economic dilemma will be found in a massive federal program for all the poor
along the lines of A. Philip Randolph's Freedom Budget, a kind of Marshall Plan
for the disadvantagedÓ. At a special conference launching the Freedom budget,
the program was summarized as follows: Restore and maintain full employment.
Guarantee a minimum adequate income to all who cannot be so employed. Assure
adequate income for all employed. Wipe out slum ghettoes and provide a decent
home for every American family. Provide modern medical care for all Americans.
Provide educational opportunities for all within the limits of their ambition,
ability and means. Wipe out other examples of neglect, including air and water
pollution, transportation snarls, and inadequate use of our great natural
resources. Correlate full employment with sustained production and economic
growth. The popularized 20- page version was prepared for even wider
distribution. Of the longer version, 50,000 copies were distributed by early
1967, along with 70,000 copies of the more popular version; by the beginning of
1968 the respective figures were 85,000 and 100,000. Speaking tours were
developed. Keyserling debated conservative Milton Friedman, the icon of
laissez-faire capitalist economics, drawing a crowd of 3,000 to UCLA on March
4, 1967, as part of his wing to promote the Freedom Budget at about twenty
different colleges and universities around the country. In an introduction to a
Spanish-language edition of the popularized twenty-page edition of the Freedom
Budget, Cesar Chavez of the United Farm Workers proclaimed: ÒNow is the time in
the history of the United States that the poor people Ð Mexican-Americans,
Negro or white, the prisoners of poverty Ð must organize to overcome and
eradicate injustice, prejudice and the inhumanity of man to manÓ.
2. The Freedom Budget was conceived and
constructed in a straight-forward manner. It operated on the principle that for
the political freedoms demanded by the civil rights movement to be realized
fully, there must also be freedom from economic want and insecurity. Those who
suffer poverty, for example, cannot be free, even if they have the right to
vote or if employers cannot discriminate against them because of their race.
The Freedom Budget provides a way for the society to eliminate economic want
and insecurity and thus make real the political freedoms that were the initial
goals of the ÒstruggleÓ for civil rights. A budget consists of two parts:
expenditures and revenues. Let's look at each one in turn. Obviously, the
United States would have to spend more money to eliminate poverty. Given that
we have a capitalist economy, it would be foolish to imagine that private
businesses might take it upon themselves to make a budget to eliminate poverty.
There are economist who believe that the interactions of self-interested
business owners, customers and workers will generate an optimal social outcome.
However, most do not, and few did in the early 1960s. The Freedom Budget
understood that the market fails when it comes to inadequate incomes,
unemployment, good schools, and a host of related social problems. Only
governments can tackle such issues, and though state and local governments can
tackle such issues, and though state and local governments can lend a hand,
only the federal government is equipped, through its powers to levy taxes,
issue bonds, and print money, to solve them. Therefore, the Freedom Budget put
the responsibility for ensuring that no one suffered from want and economic
insecurity on the federal government. The budget envisioned was that of the
national government. The budget recommended substantial increases in the
funding of Social Security, so that older men and women could live without
deprivation and those disabled, physically or mentally, must also be guaranteed
income, so that they, too, can survive without deprivation.
3. The Freedom Budget provides seven basic
objectives, which taken together will achieve this great goal within 10 years.
They are: (1) to provide full employment for all who are willing and able to
work, including those who need education or training to make them willing and
able. (2) To assure decent and adequate wages to all who work. (3) To assure a
decent standard of living to those who cannot or should not work. (4) To wipe
out slum ghettoes and provide decent homes for all Americans. (5) To provide
decent medical care and adequate educational opportunities to all Americans, at
a cost they can afford. (6) To purify our air and water and develop our
transportation and natural resources on a scale suitable to our growing needs.
(7) To unite sustained full employment with sustained full production and high
economic growth.
4. Martin Luther King Jr. once explained that
Òpower at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at
its best is power correcting everything that stands against loveÓ. The Freedom
budget was defeated. Full employment was never achieved, income inequality
skyrocketed and there is no universal health insurance. The reason given for
the defeat of the Freedom Budget is the weakness contained in the 'Strategy' of
which the Freedom Budget. The Jim Crow system, politically vulnerable as it
was, and standing in clear violation of the intentions of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, was the obvious first target for
a movement dedicated to the elimination of racism in the United States. The
Freedom Budget 'Strategy' projected (1) a mass struggle against segregation and
second-class citizenship; and (2) tackling issues of economic justice,
channeling the struggle against the Jim Crow system into an even more massive
struggle (through a coming together of the anti-racist and labor movements) for
jobs for all, an end to poverty, and democratic regulation of the economy,
which would involve a transition from capitalism to socialism. In its failure
to unanimously condemn the Vietnam war with Dr. King, the 'strategy' crossed
coalition lines using communist language regarding mass 'struggle' that might
be construed as incitement to ethnic violence and prohibited under law under
Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by who of
all non-independent parties Ð the Democratic party. Specifically, the Freedom
Budget was done in a time of such prosperity that broad coalitions of
politicians could agree upon the math, that is not preserved as a historical
fact, and probably was hugely erroneous, and as now noted technically flawed in
the classic fatal clause of seemingly well-meant Democratic legislation. The
problem with the Freedom Budget was that the Strategy brought incitement to
'struggle' to the forefront of the Freedom budget that Dr. King furthermore
sabotaged with his violent rhetoric to 'wipe out slum ghettoes'. Dr. King made
a grave 'Democratic' style technical error in regards to 'wiping out the
ghettoes' that betrayed the right of his American people to adequate housing,
and even more important free rural camping, to the contempt of the building inspector.
Maybe Martin Luther and his wife, Corretta Scott King would be alive today,
despite the extraordinary amount of atherosclerosis found in his arteries
during autopsy, if he, and his hordes of African-American ghetto dwellers, had
bought new camping gear and some vegetables, instead of paying to stay in a
motel. After a $2,000 claim for compensation for forcible relocation under
color of Òhousing authorityÓ, this edition abolishes and repeals the section on
the 'inspection of housing units', that should never have been considered
healthy or welfare, or anything but invasive and destructive of rights, and
replaces it with 'Camping' in Section 106.
5. The Freedom Budget was proposed at a time
when unemployment rates were falling. President Johnson's Great Society
spending programs and the war in Vietnam, along with sharp tax cuts, helped
drive unemployment down from 5.2 percent in 1964 to 3.5 percent in 1969.
Between 1970 and 1997, the unemployment rate fell below 5 percent. A severe
recession in the early 1980s drove the rate up to 9.7 and 9.6 percent in 1982
and 1983. In 2010, according to U.S. census data, the richest 20 percent of all
households received 50.2 percent of total household income and the poorest 20
percent got 3.3 percent, representing a gain of 13.8 percent of the most
affluent households and a loss of 21.4 percent for the least affluent since
1980. In 1947, the ratio of median black family income to white family income
was 51.1 percent. In 2010, it was 61.0 percent, less than the ratio of 61.3
percent in 1967. In 2010, the median net worth- all assets, including homes,
minus all debts) of black households (a household I snot necessarily a family
was $4,900, 5 percent of that for whites, for whom it was $97,000. The Freedom
Budget made a case for a guaranteed income. The budget's time frame was ten
years Ð 1966 to 1975. Between 1965 and 1968 growth rats were assumed to be
higher than the years between 1968 and 1975. Thus is because in the first year
so the plan, unemployment would be falling, so that output would rise as
formerly unproductive ( in the sense of not producing goods and services) men
and women were put to work. Once full employment was achieved and thereafter
maintained, output would grow as a result of new (net)entrants into the labor
force and increases in productivity. Allowing for some reduction in the length
of the workweek, consistent with then current trends, the budget assumed an
annual GDP growth rate of between 4.5 and 5.0 percent for the last six year and
an unspecified higher rate for the first four years. These numbers assumed,
therefore, that the economy would double in size in about fourteen to sixteen
years. The official poverty rate fell sharply from 1959 Ð the first year for
which data are available Ð until 1973 Ð roughly when the post-Second World War
long wave of prosperity and growth ended. The national incidence of poverty
then rose gradually from a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 to more than 15 percent
today; only broken by a short period of decline during the second half of the
1990s, when it fell back, to what it had been in 1973.
6. The Great Recession
brought sharp increases in the incidence of poverty, and rates continued to
rise through 2011. Poverty now afflicts more than 46 million people. Worse yet the
share of the poor in deep poverty Ð defined as one-half the official poverty
level of income Ð has risen steadily since the mid-1970s. In 1975, about 30
percent of the poor were in deep poverty; in 2010 44.3 percent were. In 2010,
the official poverty income for a family of four was $22,314 (this is a pre-tax
number). So, those in deep poverty must survive, in a family of four, on
$11,157. More than 20 million persons live in what can only be described as
destitution. Child poverty is a special curse, and the US rates of
unconscionably high. Using the U.S. government's official definition of
poverty, 22.0 percent of children under eighteen and 25.8 percent under six
live in poverty in the richest country on earth. In fact, the United States has
far and away the higher incidence of child poverty of any of the world's
wealthy, developed nations. Twenty-eight percent of all jobs pay a wage that
would not, with full-time, year-round labor, support a family of four at the
official poverty level of income. This is a wage rate of $11.06 per hour in
2011. Recently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in conjunction with the U.S.
Census Bureau developed a Supplemental Poverty Measure, which was released in
2011, based on a basket of goods and services, rather than merely food, that
showed the incidence of poverty is somewhat higher than the official measure.
In 2010, the official incidence of poverty was 15.2 percent, while it was 16
percent using the Supplemental Measure. In 2010, the poverty rate for the
elderly was 9 percent officially but 15.9 percent with the new definition. The
increase is due primarily to the much higher medical costs borne by older men
and women.
Sanders, Tony J. Poverty
and Social Security Sec. 71. Health and Welfare Book 3. 11th Ed. 7
February 2016 www.title24uscode.org/haw.html