Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Reci

[Pete]

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/labor-dept-data-only-175-full-time-private-sector-workers-social-security-recipient

This story covers a number of interesting points about who funds government. It breaks down the private sector and public sector workers. While Yes government workers pay taxes - their whole paycheck is funded by taxes, fees and tariffs the government collects.

"..........According to BLS, there were 111.714 million full-time workers in the United States last year. Of these, 18.073 million worked for local, state or federal government, and 93.641 million worked in the private sector.

The 93.641 million full-time private sector workers last year worked out to 1.75 for each person receiving Social Security benefits.

These 93.641 million full-time private sector workers were the foundation of the tax base that supported both government at large and Social Security in particular..........."

[Hand]

I've heard that the Social Security 'lock box' has long been empty. I've never seen anyone admit to it though. The verbiage taken from the report that this article references states that the current years Social Security income is about 33 billion dollars short of its payments. When the lock box is empty, and the country is running into 40% deficit spending, and the anointed one is looking for funding for his new 'paid for' jobs plan, and the Super Committee is looking for ways to cut 1.3 trillion dollars from the budget by November, where does the 33 billion dollars come?

[PedOncoDoc]

Perhaps someone can help explain this to me. The numbers in the OP state that government workers account for approximately 1/6 of the US workforce (16.2%). This equates to 1 government worker for every 5 non-government workers. Does this seem a bit high/off to others on here? :confused:

[Pete]

Perhaps someone can help explain this to me. The numbers in the OP state that government workers account for approximately 1/6 of the US workforce (16.2%). This equates to 1 government worker for every 5 non-government workers. Does this seem a bit high/off to others on here? :confused:

Yes - as I've said before - not everybody can work for the government. Somebody has to be out in the private sector creating a dollar.

[mojaveman]

I often run scenarios through my mind of what it's going to be like in 20 years when I try to collect Social Security and retire.

I keep coming to the conclusion that there isn't going to be any.

[1stindoor]

Yes - as I've said before - not everybody can work for the government. Somebody has to be out in the private sector creating a dollar.

Therein lies part of the viscious cycle. While Joe Civilian is working in the private sector, my disposable income is buying his product, which keeps him working and provides for his family....which pays the taxes...which funds my salary...which allows me to buy stuff...etc, etc, etc.

[PedOncoDoc]

I think we're all in agreement that if the numbers are correct that the ratio is way off of where it should be.

I was also asking if people believed the numbers were accurate.

[Pete]

Therein lies part of the viscious cycle. While Joe Civilian is working in the private sector, my disposable income is buying his product, which keeps him working and provides for his family....which pays the taxes...which funds my salary...which allows me to buy stuff...etc, etc, etc.


And if 100% of the people worked for the government the tax rate would have to be what to give everyone a paycheck?

[1stindoor]

I think we're all in agreement that if the numbers are correct that the ratio is way off of where it should be.

I was also asking if people believed the numbers were accurate.

I think if they are including local, state, government, and military it's probably pretty accurate. But to include your local government workers, i.e. trash haulers, police, etc...is misleading. In your local area it's easy to see where your taxes are going and whether or not your locally elected officials are being good stewards. When you factor in state and national level it's a lot harder to see where your money is going and how it's helping or hurting your wallet.

[1stindoor]

And if 100% of the people worked for the government the tax rate would have to be what to give everyone a paycheck?

100%...:D

Did I win? I think instead all tax revenues should just be sent to my house...I'll dole 'em out from there.
1 for you...1 for me
2 for you...and 1, 2 for me
3 for you...and 1, 2, 3 for me

[Pete]

100%...:D....

And that is the difference.

In a nutshell - The private sector creates wealth by taking a $1 item combining it with another $1 item and selling it for $3. The extra $1 is profit to be used to either make more wealth, pay debts or hire new workers.

Government removes money from the private sector and spends it on what government thinks is important. It does not create wealth just moved it around.

There is a need for government services at all level - everybody agrees on that. The debate is on how large government should be.

Taxes can not kill government - but it can kill the private sector.

If taxes get too high and the government workers feel the pinch they give themselves a pay raise and raise taxes to pay for it. So the private sector worker sees no pay raise, his taxes go up and his take home pay get smaller.

Look how well the concept is working for Greece.

[mojaveman]

Taxes can not kill government - but it can kill the private sector.

If taxes get too high and the government workers feel the pinch they give themselves a pay raise and raise taxes to pay for it. So the private sector worker sees no pay raise, his taxes go up and his take home pay get smaller.

Look how well the concept is working for Greece.

Kalifornia too...

[greenberetTFS]

I think if they are including local, state, government, and military it's probably pretty accurate. But to include your local government workers, i.e. trash haulers, police, etc...is misleading. In your local area it's easy to see where your taxes are going and whether or not your locally elected officials are being good stewards. When you factor in state and national level it's a lot harder to see where your money is going and how it's helping or hurting your wallet.

It's rather funny the first couple of workers that came to mind......;););)

Big Teddy :munchin

[GratefulCitizen]

Only two ways this ends.
Shortages, or the private sector workers end up with all the money.

Recipients will be bidding against each other for the limited goods and service provided by the private sector.
The prices will go up, which results in greater compensation to the private sector.

If the government attempts to re-confiscate from the private sector, they will produce less.
This results in shortages.

Money isn't real.
Goods and services are real.

[1stindoor]

It's rather funny the first couple of workers that came to mind......;););)

Big Teddy :munchin

Only because I have a city cop living in my area and yesterday I saw the sanitation trucks out and about.

[Badger52]

If taxes get too high and the government workers feel the pinch they give themselves a pay raise and raise taxes to pay for it.I'd be interested to know, nuts & bolts, the mechanics of that. I must've missed that in the briefing.

[Pete]

I'd be interested to know, nuts & bolts, the mechanics of that. I must've missed that in the briefing.

Unions and good old boys.

A union can force a private sector company out of business which is why both sides have to be careful during negociation.

No such deal with government unions - case in point state and local governments in CA. They can pad their pay checks and benifits. Government comes under some strain? Raise Taxes.

Good old boys? Well, hell, all our city employees worked hard this year. Lets give them a 2.5% pay raise.

"Fayetteville city employees' pay raises outpace most across state"

http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2011/06/07/1099658?sac=

Now you could argue that they are underpaid and deserve it. But.... But we just have a revaluation 3 years ago - after annexing a bunch of new areas - and it was not revenue nuetral. In otherwords due to all the new money coming in they didn't lower the tax rate - they kept the same tax rate and spent it all.

Notice in the story they were able to come up with a budget with out raising taxes or a lot of fees - this year.

".........Officials with Fayetteville and Cumberland County do not plan to raise property taxes this year, but the city would raise fees or impose new ones for some services, primarily in engineering, building, planning and sanitation.

Fayetteville officials say they can afford to award pay raises to help keep a trained and qualified work force of 1,500 people. The new budget includes $85,000 to have an employee classification and pay compensation study done that could propose higher wage increases in future years................"

Now with a population of 200,564 and only 1,500 city employees (0.747%) I'd say we're doing better than most.

[Badger52]

Unions and good old boys.OK, got it; my misunderstanding. I had been looking at it from my view in the cheap seats, where my boss who lives at 1600 Penn Ave. periodically decides unlaterally that I've volunteered to "share the burden." Strange that the labor organization that is a major part of my boss' "base" hardly said a peep about it. They must know that I don't pay their dues for getting counted and would probably tell them to pound sand if they asked.
;)

Fayetteville officials say they can afford to award pay raises to help keep a trained and qualified work force of 1,500 people.That sir is an interesting point. I had some discussions with long-time friends who are also small-biz owners in the area about the time of the kerfluffle over the "affordable" health care legislation. Local Chamber of Commerce "mixers" are wonderful events for gathering ground truth. Many business owners simply expressed more dismay because they had a really quality group of people and - once again - here was G doing something else that was literally going to prevent them from providing anything to their folks in terms of a raise or even COL adjustment beyond that required by statute. They were really angry about that. They weren't concerned about hiring new people; they were hoping to just keep the ones they have had after going to the employee with sincerely glum face to explain why there would be no extra bak-sheesh this year.

Then again, all their businesses easily gross over $250K/yr so they are part of the evil bourgeois, along with Joe the Plumber.

[GratefulCitizen]

Here come the dirty tricks.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/296261-the-chained-cpi-is-inevitable


<snip>
By indexing tax brackets more slowly, a switch to the chained CPI would increase revenue. By reducing the COLA for federal benefit programs, the switch would also reduce benefit outlays. Both the revenue increase and benefit reduction would lower the deficit. In its most recent survey of deficit reduction options, the Congressional Budget Office presented budgetary estimates for a switch to the chained CPI and summarized the policy arguments for and against that change. Based on its expectation that the chained CPI will increase 0.25 percent per year more slowly than the CPI-U and the CPI-W in upcoming years, the CBO estimated that a switch would increase income tax revenue by $72 billion, reduce Social Security benefits by $112 billion, and reduce federal pensions and veterans’ benefits by $24 billion from fiscal 2012 through 2021.
<snip>


Pump inflation while indexing increases to a measure other than true inflation.

They're not taking money from you.
They're changing the value of the money you get.

[GratefulCitizen]

Tempting for the supercommittee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/new-inflation-measure-could-reduce-social-security-benefit-increases-raise-taxes/2011/11/07/gIQAvGSevM_story_1.html


<snip>
The inflation measure under consideration is called the Chained Consumer Price Index, or chained CPI. On average, the measure shows a lower level of inflation than the more widely used CPI for All Urban Consumers.

Many economists argue that the chained CPI is more accurate because it assumes that as prices increase, consumers switch to lower cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience.

For example, if the price of beef increases while the price of pork does not, people will buy more pork. Or, as opponents mockingly argue, if the price of home heating oil goes up, people will turn down their heat and wear more sweaters.

A report by the Moment of Truth Project, a group formed to promote the deficit reduction package produced by President Barack Obama’s deficit commission late last year, supports a new inflation measure. “Rather than serving to raise taxes and cut benefits, switching to the chained CPI would simply be fulfilling the mission of properly adjusting for cost of living,” it argues.
<snip>


This is technically correct, but not truthful in the full "chained" effect.

A chained measure is more accurate when looking backwards at something after-the-fact.
The real-time effect is that tax brackets are delayed in their inflation adjustments and COLA are delayed.

This also has a subtle compounding effect.
Dress it up however they want, the bottom line: you get less from anything affected by COLA and pay more in taxes.

If this is implemented, there is a stronger incentive for the government to push for more inflation.