Social Security

tivo

tivo

CAGiversary!
I don't understand why/how people can support social security.

As I see it, it is basically a Ponzi scheme where taxes paid by you and me are then given to someone else in retirement, right away. Retiree's are not receiving "their own contributions" as there are no savings accounts where interest is accrued or their personal funds are returned safely back to them.

But even disregarding the mandate to pay for the old and sick (as in Medicare) which could be considered a societal obligation it is financially nonviable given short term projections (anyone disagree?). So why are people so obstinate against changing it or better yet, removing it all together? Please advise.
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity[/QUOTE]

Ok, using the "I can't believe P, therefore not-P" equation on what I said we'd have:
I can't imagine why people would support social security, therefore people do not support social security.
- your claim that I used a logical fallacy is wrong as the application above does not make sense. It was a request for information.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Linking to a long article that is somewhat related to the topic doesn't help advance the discussion much...[/QUOTE]

cool story bro
 
It's a good safety net for people who didn't/couldn't save up enough on their own for retirement. So we'll always need something like it in place for that reason. Otherwise you just have society stuck with a bunch of old people who can't work and have no money that society has to support anyway. Better to have a system people are paying into than that.

But it needs some tweaks.

As life expectancy goes up, retirement ages should go up. People can work longer than the could in the past. And many people are starting careers later as well with so many jobs requiring advanced degrees, and BA/BS degrees becoming the new high school diploma.

I'd also have no problem with not everyone getting full benefits. If I make enough money, and save up enough money, that I have more than enough for retirement even if I live beyond 100 I'm not sure I deserve full (or any) SS benefits even though I paid into the system. Much less people who have millions saved up. So I'd have no problem with it being another form of income redistribution in that sense.
 
+1 for "retirement age" adjustment due to life expectancy being up significantly since the last adjustment.

I ask you this then OP; what's the alternative? Work until you die? You'll end up with an even crazier AARP lobby that would basically be AAOP demanding some form of relief. Also, old people forget shit and can't drive so they'd be going to the wrong workplace and causing accidents during rush hour instead of when soap operas are on and no one cares. Also, the work until you die program causes an imbalance in employment as "new workers" will basically have to wait until a corpse opening instead of a gold watch opening.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's a good safety net for people who didn't/couldn't save up enough on their own for retirement. So we'll always need something like it in place for that reason. Otherwise you just have society stuck with a bunch of old people who can't work and have no money that society has to support anyway. Better to have a system people are paying into than that.[/QUOTE]

Folks don't understand history - don't understand that prior to these programs there were old people literally starving to death in the streets, the mortality rate was atrocious. The fact that previous generations, who were genrally alot harder, enacted these programs should tell you something (the figurative you).
 
[quote name='camoor']Folks don't understand history - don't understand that prior to these programs there were old people literally starving to death in the streets, the mortality rate was atrocious. The fact that previous generations, who were genrally alot harder, enacted these programs should tell you something (the figurative you).[/QUOTE]
Yup. And pushing back retirement age doesn't mean that you'll get the same level as productivity at 70 as you would even at 65. There's a diminishing returns problem here. Not to mention churning laborers or lack thereof when the age is increased.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's a good safety net for people who didn't/couldn't save up enough on their own for retirement. So we'll always need something like it in place for that reason. Otherwise you just have society stuck with a bunch of old people who can't work and have no money that society has to support anyway. Better to have a system people are paying into than that.

But it needs some tweaks.

As life expectancy goes up, retirement ages should go up. People can work longer than the could in the past. And many people are starting careers later as well with so many jobs requiring advanced degrees, and BA/BS degrees becoming the new high school diploma.

I'd also have no problem with not everyone getting full benefits. If I make enough money, and save up enough money, that I have more than enough for retirement even if I live beyond 100 I'm not sure I deserve full (or any) SS benefits even though I paid into the system. Much less people who have millions saved up. So I'd have no problem with it being another form of income redistribution in that sense.[/QUOTE]

I agree that some form of social security is needed... as there will always be (an unfortunately large) subset of society who does not save their money or plan well and (a smaller) subset who simply has bad luck and is struck by misfortune.

It is true that SS is a perpetual Ponzi scheme; but unlike Ponzi or Madoff, the government can force people to participate, so that should lengthen its solvency ;). However, they should keep this fund entirely separate and not be allowed to "borrow," err steal, from it. Also, the age at which you can start getting benefits should be raised and those with more than sufficient means probably shouldn't get any money from the pot. Overall, it should be essentially an emergency fund that allows people to subsist and get food/shelter... we can't afford more than that... plus, we shouldn't teach people to simply depend on the nanny state.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yup. And pushing back retirement age doesn't mean that you'll get the same level as productivity at 70 as you would even at 65. There's a diminishing returns problem here. Not to mention churning laborers or lack thereof when the age is increased.[/QUOTE]

An office worker can work to an advanced AGE, people with more strenuous jobs cannot.

Social Security is a successful program and the numbers are not that bad considering the decades of attempting to blow it up.

With that in mind, why don't the cons come up with an alternative that would you know work (unlike the last time they tried to kill SS).
 
[quote name='Msut77']With that in mind, why don't the cons come up with an alternative that would you know work (unlike the last time they tried to kill SS).[/QUOTE]

I'd like to see it replaced with investments. Specifically Treasury Bonds which would mean returns on contributions at interest rates equivalent to what the gov pays on its borrowings (i.e. recipients receive more money for better quality of life than what they get now). That plus an option for privatization w/ savings accounts/mutual funds/other bonds etc. And for the transition, allow people to opt out of the system for a fee that would then pay for the last retirees above age 40 or so. All of us at the 10-40 year olds will just have to bite the bullet and pay for our own retirement plus our elders.


One more thing, you people do know it is usually "rich" white women who are able to live to 100 yrs old and withdraw all the funds. Most of the poor people don't benefit from it and wouldn't if you raised the age limit much more.


Just some ideas....
 
The government doesnt really pay anything for its borrowings. Its been something to the tune of free or negative rates for a while now. I'm not actually sure why people are storming the gates to pay for the privilege of lending the government money, but thats the market for you I guess.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Y'all don't know what the motherfuck a ponzi scheme is.[/QUOTE]


A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.
 
[quote name='tivo']A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned.[/QUOTE]
As quoted from Wikipedia.
 
The Social Security System was set up on the basis of getting funding from the vast diversity of our nations workforce and industry. Today however company's that were built by the blood, sweat and tears of our past generations are no longer here. The jobs and the business they generated for suppliers is gone along with the taxes the employees paid and money they spent from there pay. Our nation had the ability to manufacture a vast amount of products within the boundaries of our country, today hardly anything is made in the U.S.A.
 
Social security is fine. It gives retirees some extra money to live on. It is no where near enough to live just off social security. And yes they are getting the money back that they paid into it when they were in the workforce. It is essentially a retirement plan implemented by the government to make sure people who haven't had a plan have something to live on even though it's not enough.

What needs to be changed is welfare, link card (or any other government implemented food plan. LINK is in Illinois), etc. All these programs do is reward people to sit on their ass and not work.
 
[quote name='thegreatest']What needs to be changed is welfare, link card (or any other government implemented food plan. LINK is in Illinois), etc. All these programs do is reward people to sit on their ass and not work.[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for LINK but I know that stamps are doled out as assistance everywhere I've lived in New England except in cases of disability. In every shit job I've ever worked there have always been plenty of part timers who had to get a few bucks a month in stamps to make ends meet.

Super anecdotal but lemme see if I can pull up some hard numbers. Not my specialty so no promises on that one.
 
All I'm saying is social security is something people have had to earn and qualify for. Welfare encourages people to sit on their ass and not work. Which one is the bigger waste of money?
 
[quote name='thegreatest']All I'm saying is social security is something people have had to earn and qualify for. Welfare encourages people to sit on their ass and not work. Which one is the bigger waste of money?[/QUOTE]
Actually, it was created to reduce poverty for the elderly and is a great success. Poverty rates for people over 65 was 35% before SS and fell sharply in the years following its implementation. You also need a family of 4 to qualify for enough "welfare" to meet minimum wage, which also happens to be below the poverty line. Not to mention that money paid in social services goes right back into the economy because recipients are so poor that they can't realistically save any of it in any meaningful way. So despite your streak of sadism, these programs have an important social and strong economic function in our society.

It isn't a waste of money because it would cost more to take care of the social and economic ills caused by a LACK of such programs.
 
So you are saying that if something has to be cut it should be social security which is for people have worked their entire life and have earned it but we shouldn't cut welfare for people who are just not trying to get jobs.

People on welfare drive Escalades and have anything they want WITHOUT working a day in their lives. Social security allows people who have worked until they are 65 enough to barely scrape by. I'm pretty sure if something needs to be cut it should be welfare.
 
[quote name='thegreatest']
People on welfare drive Escalades and have anything they want WITHOUT working a day in their lives. Social security allows people who have worked until they are 65 enough to barely scrape by. I'm pretty sure if something needs to be cut it should be welfare.[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, here we go with the "All welfare people drive Escalades".
 
[quote name='docvinh']Oh boy, here we go with the "All welfare people drive Escalades".[/QUOTE]

You'd probably be surprised by how many do. I've always been amazed by how many people on food stamps load their groceries into cars far nicer than mine, government assistance is no guarantee that you choose to spend your money wisely.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']You'd probably be surprised by how many do. I've always been amazed by how many people on food stamps load their groceries into cars far nicer than mine, government assistance is no guarantee that you choose to spend your money wisely.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Many people have several kids to get more government money and then spent the extra cash they don't deserve on cars, alcohol, or whatever they want while the kids they didn't want (other than for extra money) are ignored.
 
[quote name='thegreatest']Exactly. Many people have several kids to get more government money and then spent the extra cash they don't deserve on cars, alcohol, or whatever they want while the kids they didn't want (other than for extra money) are ignored.[/QUOTE]

Well actually most of those people are buying stuff with money they get from their jobs. Escalades become significantly more affordable when you're given a couple hundred in free food, reduced rent/utilities and willing to live in a beat to hell apartment in the ghetto. As I said, government assistance is not dependent on wise use of your own money.
 
[quote name='thegreatest']So you are saying that if something has to be cut it should be social security which is for people have worked their entire life and have earned it but we shouldn't cut welfare for people who are just not trying to get jobs.

People on welfare drive Escalades and have anything they want WITHOUT working a day in their lives. Social security allows people who have worked until they are 65 enough to barely scrape by. I'm pretty sure if something needs to be cut it should be welfare.[/QUOTE]
You want to go with the "welfare queen" myth? Please...

[quote name='zionoverfire']You'd probably be surprised by how many do. I've always been amazed by how many people on food stamps load their groceries into cars far nicer than mine, government assistance is no guarantee that you choose to spend your money wisely.[/QUOTE]
Doubt it. How do you you even know they're recieving assistance? Or are they just black?:roll:

[quote name='thegreatest']Exactly. Many people have several kids to get more government money and then spent the extra cash they don't deserve on cars, alcohol, or whatever they want while the kids they didn't want (other than for extra money) are ignored.[/QUOTE]
You missed the part I said about public assistance requirements didn't you?

[quote name='zionoverfire']Well actually most of those people are buying stuff with money they get from their jobs. Escalades become significantly more affordable when you're given a couple hundred in free food, reduced rent/utilities and willing to live in a beat to hell apartment in the ghetto. As I said, government assistance is not dependent on wise use of your own money.[/QUOTE]
The more money you make; the less you qualify for. And unless you're talking about a 5+ year old high mileage beat up Escalade, you two chuckleheads are still both full of shit.

This isn't quantum physics kids and Reagan lied to you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Fixed that for you.[/QUOTE]
And where are they going to get that money, genius? Lemme guess...drugs?:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']And where are they going to get that money, genius? Lemme guess...drugs?:roll:[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of ways that one can earn money "under the table". Yes, selling and/or producing drugs is one method of doing it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There are plenty of ways that one can earn money "under the table". Yes, selling and/or producing drugs is one method of doing it.[/QUOTE]
If only the CBO didn't publish a report on wefare fraud that stated that only 2% or recipients were fraudulant instead of rampant fraud from the top-down like conservatives would like people to believe. It's almost as if it was a myth created in the 60's or something that transformed into the myth we have today!
 
Man, if only we could put that magic machine that is able to exactly predict - with 100% accuracy - the individuals inside the welfare system who are fraudulently using its resources to work at preventing welfare fraud instead of churning out CBO reports (ones that we like and therefore will count as evidence that we're right. Unlike the ones we don't like, so we'll call the CBO names and claim they're incompetent), perhaps we could get some real reform done inside of our welfare system.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Man, if only we could put that magic machine that is able to exactly predict - with 100% accuracy - the individuals inside the welfare system who are fraudulently using its resources to work at preventing welfare fraud instead of churning out CBO reports (ones that we like and therefore will count as evidence that we're right. Unlike the ones we don't like, so we'll call the CBO names and claim they're incompetent), perhaps we could get some real reform done inside of our welfare system.[/QUOTE]

Right on, like I keep saying, if we reform welfare and cut spending on NPR we'll be out of the debt hole in 2 years GUARANTEED
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Man, if only we could put that magic machine that is able to exactly predict - with 100% accuracy - the individuals inside the welfare system who are fraudulently using its resources to work at preventing welfare fraud instead of churning out CBO reports (ones that we like and therefore will count as evidence that we're right. Unlike the ones we don't like, so we'll call the CBO names and claim they're incompetent), perhaps we could get some real reform done inside of our welfare system.[/QUOTE]
Which is funny because I've never said anything invalidating the CBO or called them names.

The point is that you can't prevent fraud; just like how nothing is 100% efficient. There will ALWAYS be waste. I know that diminishing returns is a hard concept for you to grasp. And by the way, the last meaningful welfare reform was enacted while Clinton was in office and cut welfare down to five years for independents without dependents while figures from the agency that disperses the money show that 80+% of people that get aid get it for under 5 years.

"Reform" is just coded language for class warfare; only problem is that you're waging it against yourself.
 
Welfare as a whole isn't helping anything. Yes, some people use it correctly as a way to live until they find another job but most people just sit on welfare and live life to fullest. Why don't you take a read here dohdough since you are clearly misinformed on how the majority of Americans on welfare use it.

http://www.t-g.com/blogs/1443/entry/42475/

In case you are too lazy to read it, I'll give you a great quote from the article "the purpose of welfare should be to give people a hand up, to help them when they are down so they can again provide for themselves, not to keep them dependent upon the program, thereby keeping them down. Welfare is a safety net, but it should only be a "temporary" aid, not a permanent lifestyle. No one WANTS to be poor, but many CHOOSE to REMAIN poor."
 
[quote name='thegreatest']Welfare as a whole isn't helping anything. Yes, some people use it correctly as a way to live until they find another job but most people just sit on welfare and live life to fullest. Why don't you take a read here dohdough since you are clearly misinformed on how the majority of Americans on welfare use it.

http://www.t-g.com/blogs/1443/entry/42475/

In case you are too lazy to read it, I'll give you a great quote from the article "the purpose of welfare should be to give people a hand up, to help them when they are down so they can again provide for themselves, not to keep them dependent upon the program, thereby keeping them down. Welfare is a safety net, but it should only be a "temporary" aid, not a permanent lifestyle. No one WANTS to be poor, but many CHOOSE to REMAIN poor."[/QUOTE]

I'll save everyone 30 seconds - the article is from the "Shelbyville Times Gazette" and contains such gems as

"Why have we [as a nation] lost sight of the "neighbor helping neighbor" philosophy?
Because the policy of high taxes and the inflationary monetary policy imposed on the American people" (lol)

"No one WANTS to be poor, but many CHOOSE to REMAIN poor" (wat)

The greatest, you are a new low in intelligence for this board and with Berzirk and Knoell on here that's saying something. Get this populist trash out of here.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Which is funny because I've never said anything invalidating the CBO or called them names.[/QUOTE]

Curious - are you a fan of the CBO's work (and Elmendorf's in particular) before he was in the closed-door meeting with Obama and the CBO discussed how much Obama's push for Health Care Reform was going to cost the Federal Government or do you prefer the CBO's stuff that came out after the closed-door meeting where the CBO did a 180 and decided that the same plans were now not going to be that big of a drain on the Federal Government?
 
[quote name='dohdough'], the last meaningful welfare reform was enacted while Clinton was in office and cut welfare down to five years for independents without dependents while figures from the agency that disperses the money show that 80+% of people that get aid get it for under 5 years.[/QUOTE]

You can point this out til you are blue in the face they will keep repeating the same tired bullshit.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']You'd probably be surprised by how many do. I've always been amazed by how many people on food stamps load their groceries into cars far nicer than mine, government assistance is no guarantee that you choose to spend your money wisely.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I used to live near a project in my hometown, didn't see endless Escalades coming through, or even one actually. I usually saw a bunch of older Hondas. I did however see a bunch coming from the rich part of town, interestingly enough.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Curious - are you a fan of the CBO's work (and Elmendorf's in particular) before he was in the closed-door meeting with Obama and the CBO discussed how much Obama's push for Health Care Reform was going to cost the Federal Government or do you prefer the CBO's stuff that came out after the closed-door meeting where the CBO did a 180 and decided that the same plans were now not going to be that big of a drain on the Federal Government?[/QUOTE]
Discussing the cost of the program and comparing a program to the budget are not 180 degree turns. If I tell you that the price of a slice of cheese is $1 and that it's 10% of the $10 you have in your wallet, there are not opposing concepts here.

Either make better analogies or start citing your bullshit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Doubt it. How do you you even know they're recieving assistance? Or are they just black?:roll:
[/QUOTE]

We don't actually have many black people around here, maybe a dozen or so in town. The poor here are white and Hispanic along with all the rest of the population.

Oh and when someone pays with an EBT card you KNOW they are getting assistance.
 
[quote name='docvinh']Eh, I used to live near a project in my hometown, didn't see endless Escalades coming through, or even one actually. I usually saw a bunch of older Hondas. I did however see a bunch coming from the rich part of town, interestingly enough.[/QUOTE]

Well around here it's common, but then so are gang shootings and drug abuse. Used car dealerships are quite happy to loan big amounts to most people figuring if they stop making payments repo the car and sell it to the next sap.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Well around here it's common, but then so are gang shootings and drug abuse. Used car dealerships are quite happy to loan big amounts to most people figuring if they stop making payments repo the car and sell it to the next sap.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. I still believe it's a small minority who abuse the system as you say they do. That doesn't warrant getting rid of the whole system.
 
You can't get rid of Social Security when people have spent their whole careers funding it. When they retire, they deserve to get that money back.
 
I'd much rather opt out of Social Security and get the money I pay into it put into an IRA account or something. My pension, 401k, savings I set aside, and the Social Security money could secure my future much better than the Social Security fund could ever do.
 
[quote name='thegreatest']You can't get rid of Social Security when people have spent their whole careers funding it. When they retire, they deserve to get that money back.[/QUOTE]

You shouldn't but they can.

This is the new America, "a nation of law" when it comes to honoring CEO bonuses, but it's no problem to rip up that pension contract if those benefitting are nothing more then the little people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top