Social(ist) Security and greedy grandmas

[tharkûn]

Social security is a scheme that makes rich people richer. How do you finance it? Payroll taxes. Guess who pays the lowest payroll taxes? The rich. When you go to collect the poor, who statistically die younger , get fewer benifits.

Social welfare to mean has always meant helping those who can't help themselves. If government is to be the impetus behind social welfare then it should be funded with equivalent tax burden (basically flat tax or something akin to income tax). Further if this is just social welfare, why the whole rigamarole with a seperate tax and system? Why not just treat it the same as all other forms of social welfare or treat all other forms of social welfare like SS?

Sorry but the current system is vote bribery which just happens to protect the needy in a horribly unfair and inefficient manner.

[Patrick Degan]

Nice, pithy bullshit. There are plenty of things you put taxes in for and you "never see that money again". Except it goes toward making a stable, liveable society in which one can pursue one's interets securely.

Except that you're presumably putting that money towards your retirement (that is the whole point of SS, is it not?) but it either goes towards other people's retirement or gets diverted into some other Federal project.

In my opinion, it's one thing to pay for taxes that clearly labeled as funding Federal projects. It's another thing to pay a tax for something that's supposed to benefit you in the future, but which in reality is funding some other project or some such thing.

When you retire, you get Social Security benefits do you not? The whole point of Social Security is to provide a backup to ensure that retirees or the disabled will not face destitution if they've got nothing else. It has always existed parallel with private pension plans and individual investment. There is nothing that prevents anyone from making his or her own retirement plan and never has been. The Federal system is there if the company goes belly-up before paying the pension, or if the nest-egg gets wiped out for one reason or another. And unless you can demonstrate that the government will not provide benefits as scheduled, when applied for, the pyramid scheme argument fails.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Further if this is just social welfare, why the whole rigamarole with a seperate tax and system? Why not just treat it the same as all other forms of social welfare or treat all other forms of social welfare like SS?

Social Security is seperate to make sure it is collected. This year I will have so many deductions at tax time, Im going to pay zero federal taxes. But I still have to pay Soc Security. Otherwise, my deductions would cancel out that tax too.

[Stormbringer]

When you retire, you get Social Security benefits do you not?

Not necessarily, and not necessarily any thing close what you payed into the system. And the fact is that the government has no legally binding obligation to pay back any portion of that money either.

And unless you can demonstrate that the government will not provide benefits as scheduled, when applied for, the pyramid scheme argument fails.

There's a serious question now as to whether the government can indeed keep paying the promised benefits much longer and almost everyone has said that the answer is no. Of course the only way to be certain that'll be the case is to wait until the system collapses. But when every sensible indivdual says the system can't work as it presently does why wait and see?

The fact is that Social Security bears a striking resemeblance to a pyramid scam in that's it's based on ever increasing income in order to pay off promises already made. Something as you know, requires constant increase in the income, something which hasn't happened and indeed income will be receeding with out massive (15-20% minimum) tax increases.

[Patrick Degan]

When you retire, you get Social Security benefits do you not?

Not necessarily, and not necessarily any thing close what you payed into the system.

Which isn't the point of the Social Security system. The point is to provide a benefit as backup security; not as a replacement for pensions or retirement investments.

And the fact is that the government has no legally binding obligation to pay back any portion of that money either.[/quote]

Then, as I asked in our previous exchanges on this subject, just what is all that stuff in the law pertaining to Social Security?

And unless you can demonstrate that the government will not provide benefits as scheduled, when applied for, the pyramid scheme argument fails.

There's a serious question now as to whether the government can indeed keep paying the promised benefits much longer and almost everyone has said that the answer is no. Of course the only way to be certain that'll be the case is to wait until the system collapses. But when every sensible indivdual says the system can't work as it presently does why wait and see?

The fact is that Social Security bears a striking resemeblance to a pyramid scam in that's it's based on ever increasing income in order to pay off promises already made. Something as you know, requires constant increase in the income, something which hasn't happened and indeed income will be receeding with out massive (15-20% minimum) tax increases.[/quote]

This is just about where we left off last time, isn't it? Simply chanting "pyramid scheme" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again does not make it so, no matter how much you believe it does. And you still keep playing the black/white fallacy that the alternative to punitive taxation for everybody is simply to allow the system to collapse —which was about the same argument floated the last time there was a Social Security crisis looming and which didn't happen then, either.

[The Kernel]

Patrick, surely you see that the no one hears wants Social Security to fail right? Too many people depend on it and it would be a national crisis for senior for it to do so.

Whether or not it will fail without reform is open to debate, but the current state of Social Security is shaky at best. Whether or not the government can engineer a bail-out in the future is irrelevant, we need to be more concerned that Social Security isn't providing in the way that it was designed to. If it is a tax for welfare for the elderly then it fails because there is too much abuse of the system and not enough money to support the large population of retirees over the next twenty years. If it is a government mandated investment plan then it also fails because it does not return on the investment for most people (you would be much better off putting the money in a 401K).

You seem to believe that it is a form of welfare for the elderly (which I agree with) but it is being terribly managed and its long-term future is in doubt under the current system. We need not see it acutally fail to realize this.

Privitization isn't the answer here, what is needed is a reworking of the system to favor long-term management of the funds. Too often the Social Security fund has been dipped into in years past by different administrations and this has to stop. Do you realize that if the money had been placed in a market interest bearing account over the last sixty years, we would not be having these problems? Obviously something has gone terribly wrong if the US Government can't manage these funds any better then a money market account.

[Stormbringer]

Then, as I asked in our previous exchanges on this subject, just what is all that stuff in the law pertaining to Social Security?

In our last debate all you did was stick your fingers in your ears and go "nuh ugh." How the fuck can I prove anything when you simply erect the Wall of Ignorance.

This is just about where we left off last time, isn't it? Simply chanting "pyramid scheme" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again does not make it so, no matter how much you believe it does.

Again, I've shown that it has the key characteristics of a pyramid scheme:

• Requires ever increasing income to sustain- yup
• No legally guarenteed return- yup

At this point buddy, it's up to you to actually disprove that. Simply saying it's not a pyramid scheme isn't refuting a damn thing. I've shown that it does indeed have the characterstics.

And you still keep playing the black/white fallacy that the alternative to punitive taxation for everybody is simply to allow the system to collapse —which was about the same argument floated the last time there was a Social Security crisis looming and which didn't happen then, either.

I'm not saying it's kill it or get taxed to death, that's your moronic strawman. I'm saying it needs to be reformed for the simple reason that it can't be sustained at present with the tax rates, that's simple fact born out by the simple numbers.

Explain how it's possible to pay for more retirees at the same rate with less workers making the same pay rates with out raising taxes.

[Darth Wong]

In our last debate all you did was stick your fingers in your ears and go "nuh ugh." How the fuck can I prove anything when you simply erect the Wall of Ignorance.

No, he pointed out that your model requires infinite extrapolation and the assumption that absolutely nothing will be done about it until the systen collapses. Hardly a reasonable assumption on your part.

Again, I've shown that it has the key characteristics of a pyramid scheme:

• Requires ever increasing income to sustain- yup
• No legally guarenteed return- yup

At this point buddy, it's up to you to actually disprove that. Simply saying it's not a pyramid scheme isn't refuting a damn thing. I've shown that it does indeed have the characterstics.

Don't be ridiculous; according to your fucked-up definition, the entire government is a pyramid scheme. Do you even know what a pyramid scheme is? Where is the pyramidal hierarchy? Where is the fraud?

I'm not saying it's kill it or get taxed to death, that's your moronic strawman. I'm saying it needs to be reformed for the simple reason that it can't be sustained at present with the tax rates, that's simple fact born out by the simple numbers.

And when did Patrick say that it should be kept static and completely unchanged forever? I must have missed that post. He only objected to particular schemes of "improvement" such as investing it in the stock market.

[Stormbringer]

No, he pointed out that your model requires infinite extrapolation and the assumption that absolutely nothing will be done about it until the systen collapses. Hardly a reasonable assumption on your part.

I am indeed saying that Social Security will collapse in nothing is done. So far there hasn't been any candidate or current office holder that's argued for meaningful reform. If it's an unreasonable possibility where are the reformers?

Don't be ridiculous; according to your fucked-up definition, the entire government is a pyramid scheme.

And why can't a government run something that they no can't really work? Hmmm, simply because it's the government has no bearing on whether it was doing something dishonest or not.

Do you even know what a pyramid scheme is? Where is the pyramidal hierarchy? Where is the fraud?

The current retirees are at the top demanding more and newer benefits and it goes down from there with the current generation being at the bottom of the heap.

And when did Patrick say that it should be kept static and completely unchanged forever? I must have missed that post. He only objected to particular schemes of "improvement" such as investing it in the stock market.

He didn't advocate that. He's making the utterly moronic strawman that I'm say that's what I want to do. I don't and if you care to look past his bullshit you'd see that.

Of course he also hasn't suggested anything either.

[Darth Wong]

I am indeed saying that Social Security will collapse in nothing is done. So far there hasn't been any candidate or current office holder that's argued for meaningful reform. If it's an unreasonable possibility where are the reformers?

It's not a crisis yet. That's why no one's done anything yet.

Don't be ridiculous; according to your fucked-up definition, the entire government is a pyramid scheme.

And why can't a government run something that they no can't really work? Hmmm, simply because it's the government has no bearing on whether it was doing something dishonest or not.

Irrelevant; you gave a definition by which the entire government qualifies as a pyramid scheme, and I pointed out that your definition is absurd. Don't change the subject.

Do you even know what a pyramid scheme is? Where is the pyramidal hierarchy? Where is the fraud?

The current retirees are at the top demanding more and newer benefits and it goes down from there with the current generation being at the bottom of the heap.

I see you don't know what a pyramid scheme is, since you interchange government safety net programs, investment concepts, and distribution commission-based income schemes as if they are all the same thing. As I said, your definition bears no resemblance whatsoever to the FTC definition of a pyramid scheme.

He didn't advocate that. He's making the utterly moronic strawman that I'm say that's what I want to do. I don't and if you care to look past his bullshit you'd see that.

Oh, puh-lease. Enough bullshit. I saw the thread in question. When Stravo asked what would happen if Social Security were simply abolished completely, you said:

The sheer amount of our tax dollars that vanish into those programs is staggering. Adding that to the economy would certainly help tremendously. Cycling money through government is always a net loss simply due to the nature of government. Social Security and it's ilk hold entirely true to the pattern.

And no, I don't think we'd be swamped with elderly dependents. It's entirely possible with judicious savings and investment to retire comfortably and at a reasonable age provided they managed their money right.

Don't pretend now that Patrick was exaggerating your position in that thread. You claimed it would be a good thing to annihilate the entire program and assume that the elderly can all take care of themselves; I don't call that "reform".

[weemadando]

Why is it that everytime social security is mentioned the Americans automatically assume that its impossible and would never work, simply because their badly designed and poorly implemented system doesn't.

[RedImperator]

And the fact is that the government has no legally binding obligation to pay back any portion of that money either.

Then, as I asked in our previous exchanges on this subject, just what is all that stuff in the law pertaining to Social Security?

In Flemming v. Nestor, SCOTUS ruled that Congress is under no legal obligation to pay anything to someone merely because he contributed into the system--in short, paying Social Security taxes does not create a legally binding contract between the taxpayer and the government. Under current law, of course, Congress is obligated to pay, but Congress has the power to change the law anytime it wants. Nobody who pays into the system is guranteed so much as a nickel. You can't point to the Social Security Act as proof Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, because Congress can alter or abolish any obligations created by that act at any time.

[phongn]

Why is it that everytime social security is mentioned the Americans automatically assume that its impossible and would never work, simply because their badly designed and poorly implemented system doesn't.

Americans tend to think rather poorly about how their government manages money, Anders.

[weemadando]

Why is it that everytime social security is mentioned the Americans automatically assume that its impossible and would never work, simply because their badly designed and poorly implemented system doesn't.

Americans tend to think rather poorly about how their government manages money, Anders.

Every nation thinks rather poorly both of and about how their government handles money, but it doesn't stop most of us from knowing we have an at least relatively stable and effective social security system.

[Iceberg]

And the fact is that the government has no legally binding obligation to pay back any portion of that money either.

Then, as I asked in our previous exchanges on this subject, just what is all that stuff in the law pertaining to Social Security?

In Flemming v. Nestor, SCOTUS ruled that Congress is under no legal obligation to pay anything to someone merely because he contributed into the system--in short, paying Social Security taxes does not create a legally binding contract between the taxpayer and the government. Under current law, of course, Congress is obligated to pay, but Congress has the power to change the law anytime it wants. Nobody who pays into the system is guranteed so much as a nickel. You can't point to the Social Security Act as proof Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, because Congress can alter or abolish any obligations created by that act at any time.

Funny, this doesn't stop other countries from having social security systems that actually work. I guess this is what comes from having half the government come from a party that's devoted to making sure that the government doesn't work so they can dissolve the whole thing and create a giant corporate oligarchy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Irrelevent~ he has to at least try to support his arguments, which he did in the post before yours

Bullshit. I wasn't answering your question, I just wanted you to put up if you're going to refer to anonymous threads. You do the citing, you do the posting.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I guess this is what comes from having half the government come from a party that's devoted to making sure that the government doesn't work so they can dissolve the whole thing and create a giant corporate oligarchy.

Care to back up that gaping claim? I'd really like to see your real proof that the Republican Party itself deliberately sabotages the government and how that pertains to various money holes like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

[RedImperator]

Funny, this doesn't stop other countries from having social security systems that actually work.

You will, I trust, point out where in the thread I said that an old-age pension program can't work under any circumstances.

I guess this is what comes from having half the government come from a party that's devoted to making sure that the government doesn't work so they can dissolve the whole thing and create a giant corporate oligarchy.

Yeah, it's all the Republican Party's fault. They're EEEEEEEVIIIIIIIIILLLL(TM], don't you know.

[Patrick Degan]

And the fact is that the government has no legally binding obligation to pay back any portion of that money either.

Then, as I asked in our previous exchanges on this subject, just what is all that stuff in the law pertaining to Social Security?

In Flemming v. Nestor, SCOTUS ruled that Congress is under no legal obligation to pay anything to someone merely because he contributed into the system--in short, paying Social Security taxes does not create a legally binding contract between the taxpayer and the government. Under current law, of course, Congress is obligated to pay, but Congress has the power to change the law anytime it wants. Nobody who pays into the system is guranteed so much as a nickel. You can't point to the Social Security Act as proof Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, because Congress can alter or abolish any obligations created by that act at any time.

And likewise, you cannot use a "what-if" argument as proof for the contention that Social Security is a giant pyramid scheme, either. Furthermore, the Flemming case specifically pertained to the matter of a Bulgarian immigrant who had qualified for a pension, then was deported from this country in 1956 on suspicion of being a Communist agent and who subsequently tried to claim his pension as his legal property —something which was never written into the letter of the law— on the grounds of his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Naturally the court ruled against him, since to do otherwise would have cast legal doubt on Congress' power to alter or amend its own legislation.

Yes, Congress could abolish Social Security because that is within their legal, constitutional power to do so. But trying to spin that sort of "what if" into proof of your argument is ludicrous in the extreme. They can also rescind Bush's tax cuts tomorrow —nobody has a "right" to lower taxes either. Shall I subsequently argue that "what-if" as "proof' that Congress is a giant criminal conspiracy to defraud and steal from the American people?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092302/

fact, economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Jagadeesh Gokhale say that a typical man reaching age 65 today will get a net windfall of more than $70,000 over his remaining years. A luckless 25-year-old, by contrast, can count on paying $322,000 more in payroll taxes than he will ever get back in benefits.

if the youth need something to get outraged about then here it is: greedy senior citizens who spend a lifetime accumulating wealth and then demand the govenmnet support them in their later years. I say any senior with more than 500,000 in assets and 30,000 in other retirement income should have their social security income SLASHED!

This allows people to go through life WITHOUT saving for retirement, (or at the very least save less.) When you put money away for retirement it hurts the economy compared to if you spent the money. This way you spend, the government taxes you and spends and they take care of you on rainy days.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This allows people to go through life WITHOUT saving for retirement, (or at the very least save less.) When you put money away for retirement it hurts the economy compared to if you spent the money. This way you spend, the government taxes you and spends and they take care of you on rainy days.

Except it doesn't work and the government is miserably mismanaged and wasteful.

And you do realize when the government taxes for those benefits--that is the money taken out of circulation, hurting the economy.

Investment is purchasing stocks--circulating capital. Yes, placing cash in the bank does take it out of circulation, but that's nothing compared to the tax burden of universal retirement.

Note, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but you're rebuttal is stupid because the investing is better for the economy rather than taxes instead of the other way around you painted it. I'm merely correcting that.

[Hamel]

This allows people to go through life WITHOUT saving for retirement, (or at the very least save less.) When you put money away for retirement it hurts the economy compared to if you spent the money. This way you spend, the government taxes you and spends and they take care of you on rainy days.

Except it doesn't work and the government is miserably mismanaged and wasteful.

And you do realize when the government taxes for those benefits--that is the money taken out of circulation, hurting the economy.

Investment is purchasing stocks--circulating capital. Yes, placing cash in the bank does take it out of circulation, but that's nothing compared to the tax burden of universal retirement.

Note, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but you're rebuttal is stupid because the investing is better for the economy rather than taxes instead of the other way around you painted it. I'm merely correcting that.

You're big on throwing these "support your arguments" snipes from the sidelines, but here you are making unsupported sound-byte statements yourself.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're big on throwing these "support your arguments" snipes from the sidelines, but here you are making unsupported sound-byte statements yourself.

Wow. There's a rebuttal.

Are you really claiming that investment is worse for the economy than tax-n-spend?

You're just pissy because I called you out on citing a mystery thread. Don't cry now.

[MKSheppard]

Social Security, what a crock, they take money out of my payroll each
week, to pay for old people's retirement, and by the time I'm of retirement
age, they'll have cut the benefits massively.

It's nothing but a giant pyramid scam that benefits the old, and
screws the young workers who are going to get old AFTER the
baby boomers come in and fuck the SS system all to hell.

The system might have worked in the 1940s when we had a ratio
of like 1 retiree to 11 people who pay into the system, but now that the retirees
are going to explode with the retirement of the baby boom generation...
uhm...it's not going to be pretty, so I really have no confidence in SS.

Normally, I'm pretty optimistic, but I can't just see the required
reform to allow SS to survive into my old age as a viable
entitiy happen, because of the AARP's power.

[Hamel]

Wow. There's a rebuttal.

Are you really claiming that investment is worse for the economy than tax-n-spend?

You're just pissy because I called you out on citing a mystery thread. Don't cry now.

Why would I be pissy about that, when I brought Shawn Michaels in to school your arse? Are you done being a flaming hypocrite or what?