Social Security Fact or Fiction

[Vol_Bengal]

Was out all day yesterday so apologize for the late replies. Felt like I had to give my opinion on a couple things I saw in various posts.


[quote name='sois' post='650534' date='Apr 9 2008, 12:15 PM']2. How can a system be bankrupt when there is money still coming in?
4. My solution is to eliminate the wage cap, raise the SS age to 75 and limit beneficiaries to those below the poverty line. Of course, nobody likes my solution.[/quote]
Rick said in about 10 years... and you can have as much money coming in as you'd like but if you're paying out more than what is coming in, then... once your "cushion" or "working margin" is exhausted you're bankrupt... that is where it is currently heading.

And, SS is not welfare or unemployment. It was promised as a retirement plan, or pension, that would pay you benefits commensurate with the amount of money that you paid in while you were working.


[quote name='sois' post='650609' date='Apr 9 2008, 04:43 PM']If you feel that helping people that can't afford the basics of life is "screwing" you, then you have a very terrible outlook on life.[/quote]

Has nothing to do with the "basics" of life, unless you mean folks that paid into the program for years and are now of retirement age and can't afford the "basics of life"... those folks paid in and deserve their benefit. As do you and I, assuming of course that we pay in as well.

Folks that don't pay in to the SS system and are on welfare, etc. don't deserve to draw SS at retirement as they didn't contribute to the system when they were at working age. Call it heartless, or whatever, but it is what it is.


[quote name='sois' post='650665' date='Apr 9 2008, 06:47 PM']I haven't started much research on the origin or history of the SS program, but I believe what you say about its beginnings.[/quote]

What Rick posted as origins is correct. After posting all these "facts" the other day it got me to thinking so I did some research and SS was designed as a retirement plan, or pension essentially, for people that contributed to the system during their working years. It didn't say anything about needing to be below the poverty line, etc. to draw benefits.

Essentially, you had to contribute to the system and then would draw benefits commensurate to what was paid in by you. It is that simple.


As for fixing it - I think the age needs to go up probably 5 years or so and I think, like Bung I believe stated in another topic, there should be a reasonable "cost of living" generated for each area (not at poverty) and your own 401k, etc. should be taken into account and any amount that you'd need to get to that number for the area you live you'd receive in SS. Those that have saved, etc. and are expected to have plenty, basically, at or above the number for the area they live wouldn't receive anything.

Again, those fixes that I propose would still only go to those that contributed to the system. This isn't welfare. But, maybe I'm cold-hearted, so be it I guess...

[J. Lindsey]

There is really only one solution to fix SS, which is we need to start having more children that will eventually pay into the social secruity. If each couple has eight kids, then there will be four workers paying for one retiree. It sounds nice to me, everyone just start fuckin' more!

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='J. Lindsey' post='650983' date='Apr 10 2008, 01:16 PM']There is really only one solution to fix SS, which is we need to start having more children that will eventually pay into the social secruity. If each couple has eight kids, then there will be four workers paying for one retiree. It sounds nice to me, everyone just start fuckin' more![/quote]
Well, I'm halfway there!!!

Although, you could just put what it'd cost you from the time they're born to the time they turn 18 into an investment and be more than set!!!


But, you're idea is more fun!

[sois]

If the SS system is truly designed to be a pension/retirement plan, then it is a total failure and must be scrapped. There is no way to fix it without revamping the whole thing.

I would rather just convert it to a true "social security" welfare program and combine it with all the rest. I can see how some of you are angry about the status of this failing entity. I apologize for not knowing all of the details.

[Homer_Rice]

Time for a little "tough love."

SS is perhaps one of the most successful government initiatives ever promulgated by our government. It's served it's purpose very well and done so without imposing much of a burden on either wage earners or the companies which fund it. And, despite all the bugaboo about it currently, it's fine for the next few decades, too.

What really needs to be looked at is this: Why are folks allowing their button to be pushed over this issue, when the economy effectively crossed the Rubicon into bankruptcy last summer? You've got more immediate concerns, friends.

Best wake up.

[hocuspocus]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='651171' date='Apr 10 2008, 10:05 PM']Time for a little "tough love."

SS is perhaps one of the most successful government initiatives ever promulgated by our government. It's served it's purpose very well and done so without imposing much of a burden on either wage earners or the companies which fund it. And, despite all the bugaboo about it currently, it's fine for the next few decades, too.

What really needs to be looked at is this: Why are folks allowing their button to be pushed over this issue, when the economy effectively crossed the Rubicon into bankruptcy last summer? You've got more immediate concerns, friends.

Best wake up.[/quote]


Hey Homer - I think the concern is not that it is or is not successful (which is arguable since it has served to create this entitled society who looks to gov't to supply every need - cradle to grave - blah blah - I've said it all before...) but that it is a 'gov't initiative' at all. I already save and plan as if I'll not get a dime of SS - what is wrong with that? If you are at an age where you have time... I'd rather have those high taxes on SS in my pocket to invest now as opposed to the gamble it is (for me being only 34) today. I also disagree on the burden... mine has been pretty stiff with no guarantee of return... 8% of my wages for tax year 2007 - not exactly a small burden.

I will say that yes I've come around a bit on the doom and gloom. I think as you that we've got some real issues in short term and SS needs to sit on the back burner. My largest concern is the hidden 'tax' related to the falling dollar and increased price of every item we consume. Why are we not doing anything to stop that... oh well. I'm hunkering down a bit and saving extra to help ease out any (hopefully temporary) increase in cost of living brought on by all of this.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='hocuspocus' post='654694' date='Apr 21 2008, 04:38 PM']Hey Homer - I think the concern is not that it is or is not successful (which is arguable since it has served to create this entitled society who looks to gov't to supply every need - cradle to grave - blah blah - I've said it all before...) but that it is a 'gov't initiative' at all.[/quote]

There are two related reasons why I disagree with this. First, people are generally ignorant of their history and this is doubly true of our economic history. Second, government is all about entitlements and responsibilities.

Any calm assessment of our economic history reveals one major theme: our periods of stability and growth have generally been accompanied by strong governmental influence/initiative/dirigism. That's an essential component that has served to both unleash and harness the fundamentally entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. Starts with the Annapolis Convention, the precursor to our Philadelphia Convention. Could cite examples such as the development of canals and railroads; the original contracts which improved armory practice and eventually led to the development of interchangeable parts; and especially to the ebb and flow of our legislative/administrative apparatus, affirmed or modified by judicial review, which provides the framework of our economic structure.

Furthermore, it is undisputably true that the laissez-faire tendencies our system of government allows is, itself, the result of government intervention. People conveniently overlook this fact. Our legal structure as it pertains to economic matters is more than generous to those who ideologically spit in the face of our government. Doesn't stop them from lining up at the trough, though, when there are bucks to be looted. And, in times when the system has gone "gang aft agley"--as it has now--it's the ideological folks who work overtime to prevent a rational return to balance. And, the fact that most folks don't have any real comprehension of US history in-fine-detail, much less understand how a society reproduces itself, makes it possible for the ideologues to sway the governmental apparatus in their favor. And yet, it still remains the government. (Though I must admit, the past 8 years have seen a vigorous attempt to destroy the foundations of our government, with varied success.)

The second reason is more straightforward: our Constitution was created to ensure certain entitlements and responsibilites for its citizens. In many people's opinion, this include some basic economic rights, along with political rights. There's no moral reason to object, in principle, to having a society which provides for some basic needs for the elderly. And those who insist that our Constitution doesn't provide any economic rights would (and, in fact, do) scream bloody murder if (when) attempts are made to create a lawfully sanctioned politico-economic system that is more equitable for all it's citizens, not just the top 20%.

And it's the historical illiteracy of bulk of the population which tolerates this foolishness. It isn't the entitlement side of things that represents the problem here, it's the responsibility side.

[quote]I already save and plan as if I'll not get a dime of SS - what is wrong with that? If you are at an age where you have time... I'd rather have those high taxes on SS in my pocket to invest now as opposed to the gamble it is (for me being only 34) today. I also disagree on the burden... mine has been pretty stiff with no guarantee of return... 8% of my wages for tax year 2007 - not exactly a small burden.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with planning for your retirement. What's wrong with fulfilling your moral responsibility to the community at large? And, if one wants to focus on the burden of withholding, then would the Medicare component be a more likely candidate to consider?

I'll say this again: in a healthy economy, SS is not a huge problem. The "miracle" of real growth and real profit (as opposed to the paper shuffling of a FIRE economy) not only works to improve productive efficiencies and technological breakthroughs which revolutionize economic practice, it generates enough surplus to invest in improved standards of living. We have the know-how to boost the economy into the next level, where real costs decline, but not the will. That is where people need to focus their attention because if they don't, as you say, you're fucked. But that would be your generation's fault, wouldn't it?

[quote]I will say that yes I've come around a bit on the doom and gloom. I think as you that we've got some real issues in short term and SS needs to sit on the back burner. My largest concern is the hidden 'tax' related to the falling dollar and increased price of every item we consume. Why are we not doing anything to stop that... oh well. I'm hunkering down a bit and saving extra to help ease out any (hopefully temporary) increase in cost of living brought on by all of this.[/quote]

My Dad, rest his soul, was a Depression kid. I used to joke with him about the month or two's worth of food he kept on hand at all times. Now that I am the same age as he was when all that joking took place, I find myself doing the same thing.

It's not doom and gloom--that's perception. And perception has gotten us into this mess. As I said before, I've been talking about this eventuality for a quarter century now, unless we were to change our ways. Well, now it's here and we aren't changing our ways--yet. It's maybe the second inning of a protracted period of economic decline and related political instability. If we manage to avoid WWIII, and come to appreciate the reality of the situation, then we have an opportunity to mend our ways, maybe even enter a period of real flourishing in our economic practice. But a lot of folks are going to needlessly die in the meanwhile.

And that's a crime against humanity.