Slashdot Mirror

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

1970.....6,186.24

correct, mod up

Where did you get those bullshit numbers? In 1970 the average worker earned $19.20 (I guess that is per hour). Well, according to the SSA the US average income in 1970 was $6,186.24 (in 2011 it was $42,979.61). So, if the average worker was making $19.20 in 1970, they were only working 322 hours per year, which is of course nonsense. In reality, the actual average earner was making about $3/hour in 1970.

As for your idiotic example of Circuit City, do you have the slightest bit of evidence that retaining the 3000 fired people would have made any difference to the longevity of the company? No, you do not. Circuit City did not die because they replaced those workers, it died because people no longer went to the stores, they purchased online. And you can't compete with price online when you are paying 3000 people who aren't resulting in any sales.

According to that chart the US has had almost 10% inflation for a decade -- it's ridiculous, or at least if it were true, it would call into question the utility of such a measure. If such a measure were accurate, that would mean that real wages have not just been stagnant, but had been declining in excess of 5% a year, and that the median wage-earner's real wealth has been declining precipitously since the 1980s. I guess you can make the numbers look that way, but it's subjectively nuts.

They substitute hamburger for steak because people don't buy enough steak for it to be an adequate model of the consumer basket -- it's a luxury good and it doesn't behave like a proper staple commodity, it's bought when it can be afforded, it's subject to regional and seasonal price changes, and purchasing decisions related to it were not correlated to inflation. From the Boskin commission report:

5. The BLS should study the behavior of the individual components of the index to ascertain which components provide most information on the future longer-term movements in the index and which items have fluctuations which are largely unrelated to the total and emphasize the former in its data collection activities.

This could result in the down-weighting or even elimination of data collection for certain cities and a revision of the commodity structure of the index which would consider some goods as having a national market, sampling a larger number of items but with less regard to geography, focusing on geographical differences only for more "local" commodities, such as fuel costs, rent, personal services, and fresh produce.Currently, the BLS collects a large number of price quotes on bananas, because they are inexpensive to collect and their prices are quite variable, even though these variations are not related systematically to the underlying trend-movements in the CPI. At the same time, less attention is paid to less variable but more likely to change (disappear or be redesigned) and harder to measure commodities, such as surgical treatments, consumer electronics, and communication services.

They changed the CPI calculations in the mid 90's because the CPI's method up to that time was completely unscientific and based on arbitrary, non-evidence based preconceptions about what people shopped for. Meanwhile they eliminated food and energy from the core CPI because they concluded these prices were far too volatile to aid in policy making, and in the end food and energy are just inputs into other processes which are eventually priced by the CPI. They also made the very wise decision of eliminating house prices from the calculation, substituting equivalent rent. The consensus among economists is that the CPI was overestimating inflation throughout the 80s.

I'm not going to say there can't be more room for improvement, but I think you're wrong on this point, and your account of how the CPI works is glib and biased.

Depending on where you live, you may be more valuable to the economy as a prisoner. For example, the US national average wage for 2011 is about $43,000, whereas California currently spends about $50,000 per prisoner.

To exit SS, give everyone actual living expenses as a 10 year lump sum. Allow them to invest it and live off the interest. That should be enough to make up for bad habits, like unpaid mortgages, renting instead of owning, credit card debt, and financed/leased vehicles.

If all you need is food, shelter, and clothing, that's only about $7500/year for a single household. If you received $150,000 and invested it at a 5% average return (there are many ways to do better than this), you'd get $7500/year until the end of time.

About 62 million receive benefits, so the total cost to quit the program would be a bit more than $9.3 trillion. The benefit would be that everyone would have 6% more money to work with. Also, the average SS check is $525.84/month per person (Jan 2013). This would provide $625/month (18% increase) or more per person and allow for debt-free living.

The trust fund for Social Security only contains $2.7 trillion. It's at 29% of the level necessary to indefinitely sustain a normal cost of living. It will go bankrupt eventually.

It's worth noting that Asian americans have a higher life expectancy than residents of japan.

Japanese Americans have a higher economic status than the median American, and higher than the median citizen of Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Since race is strongly correlated with life expectancy, the mere fact of a more diverse population brings US numbers down, even if we handle every racial group better.

When we control for socioeconomic status the race correlation of life expectancy either is drastically reduced or else disappears entirely. You are trying to paint an economic problem the U.S. has (extreme disparity of wealth and serious poverty) which we could attempt to rectify as an inevitable genetic thing that no one can do anything about.

Life expectancy is a poor measure to star with, since it's not closely tied to medical care in particular.

Since it contradicts the considered option of the world medical community you need to at least try to post a link to substantiate such a radical claim.

In fact since 3/4 of the potential years of life lost in the U.S. before the age of 65 are due to medical conditions your claim is nonsense. The link is very strong.*

Social factors are a major cause of premature deaths. Life expectancy at later ages may be more relevant, as medical conditions start taking over causes of death instead of accidents and violence.

The claim is false for those under 65, as well as for those over 65, which are acknowledging here.

The definition of live birth as actually calculated differs from country to country and this has a large impact on numbers. As a way of avoiding those differences in counting live births, I suggest perinatal mortality instead. And, go figure, the US is better than some of the countries that regular infant mortality would suggest would surpass it. The UK (25th) for instance goes from being 2 better than us to 1 worse on rates. It's funny, but the numbers on that wiki link do not correspond to sorty by any of the actual infant mortality numbers. I believe perinatal has it's own landmines, but the time frame immediately surrounding birth is more connected to medical system than from birth to 1.

We do better true, but we are still 24th on the list.

*There is a claim that has been bouncing in the right wing megaphone echo chamber for four years asserting that if you control of accidents and violence U.S. life expectancy jumps to number one. The claim is false and traces to a single miscaptioned table in a report by conservative think tank economists Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider. The table shows that the U.S. would lead in life expectancy if U.S. life expectancy tracked the life vs GDP trendline of the OECD. In fact it does not, it does far worse - which is exactly the problem that needs to be solved.

Why do we not talk about defunding the Social Security Administration (even though the bulk of the funding to the SSA doesn't even make it to recipients of SS?)

99% of the money collected by the Social Security tax is paid out to recipients. Since 1989 SS administrative costs have been 1% or less. Since 1957 it's never been higher than 2.3%. Here's the table.

Social security is not discretionary spending, and it is not part of the federal budget. It is a separate trust fund funded by separate taxes.

Umm... you do realize that in the early 80s congress passed a bill to put the Social Security funds into the General Fund on the theory that having all that money just sitting around was wasted money? Yeah, all that money was spent and now Social Security has to be paid for out of the General Fund.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html

Note that they call what I am saying a myth. Do more research. They are playing fast and loose with words. Congress emptied out the Social Security trust fund. That is why "entitlements" are such a huge part of the budget now. We have been robbed.

The intent of the $100k figure (per person) is to provide basic living expenses for at least 10 years (food, utilities, and fixed-rate property taxes). A person who is 65 should already own their home and their means of transportation. Medicare wouldn't be phased out, so unexpected medical expenses should be a non-issue.

The purpose of exiting social security is to free up $300-400 billion/year that could be applied to increased taxes and another $300-400 billion/year that could be used on consumer spending. By paying in lump sums, spending would immediately be affected. Assuming $400 billion in increased taxes happened, the deficit would completely gone and everyone would have just a bit more money in their pocket.

"The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012." - Social Security Administration

Taking 5% annual growth into account and a $1230/month burn rate, $100k would last 8.25 years, $150k would last just over 14 years, and $200k would last over 22 years. This doesn't account for inflation, but gives an idea of why you would want to pay lump sums instead of just a little at a time. It's nearly impossible to make monthly checks grow into something more. At about $300,000 the funds would last indefinitely if removed at a constant rate. Correctly invested, it could become significantly more.

With average life expectancy at 78, the correct amount for a payout would be closer to $150k for someone at age 65 - less for someone that's older.

Most of the pension problems are due executives raiding the pension fund and then ignoring the problem until it comes back to bite them.

All means testing will do is burn up double the savings on bureaucratic paper shuffling while leaving people to fall through the cracks.

Let's start with Social Security then. It requires approximately 2.8 workers to fund a single retiree beneficiary:

Some of the historical decline is related to the natural maturing of a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, but the projected future decline is due to the aging of the U.S. population. This ratio is of fundamental importance to the long-run fiscal health of the U.S. Social Security program. With currently scheduled tax rates and benefits, the system needs a worker-to-beneficiary ratio of about 2.8 to function at a pay-as-you-go level (meaning that tax revenue approximately equals benefit payments).

We may have already fallen below that ratio by now. If not, we're right at the cusp, because the Boomers started to hit 65 in 2011. It's probably gauche to link a previous comment, but this explains why the $3 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is nothing more than a bookkeeping entry and does not represent any assets, per se, any more than if someone were to write themselves a check for a million dollars while having only overdrawn accounts in the bank.

So, in order for Social Security to be as close to "pay as you go" as possible—which would be the closest approximation of fairness that can be achieved while retaining the pyramid scheme—it is imperative that the retirees make some sacrifices. Increasing the retirement age immediately to 68+ and means testing SS distributions (ie. turning it into a form of welfare rather than a pension) would be a good start.

Something needs to change. The current working generations (and all subsequent ones) did not make this mess. Continuing to pay on a cut down, welfare-like Social Security would be an example of merciful pity our generation is taking on the older, mathematically challenged generations, rather than any sort of ethical obligation.

It would be a great injustice if we, the next generations, have to pay more taxes than the Boomers did during their working years merely in order to pay them all the benefits *they* promised themselves that *we* would pay. It's only fair to make them work longer and to reduce the expenditures on the program to be something that's only given to those in need.

As for the allegation that means testing would burn up the savings, I doubt it: we already have welfare means testing and people are generally required to file income taxes anyway. That should have all the data that's necessary. If it's a problem, it would be simple for them to institute withholding on the SS checks based on a W4-like allowances system. That hasn't destroyed the ability of working households to function during the ~70 years it's been in place.

We have a moral obligation to break this vicious cycle, rather than passing it on to our children and the unborn.

Most of the pension problems are due executives raiding the pension fund and then ignoring the problem until it comes back to bite them.

All means testing will do is burn up double the savings on bureaucratic paper shuffling while leaving people to fall through the cracks.

Let's start with Social Security then. It requires approximately 2.8 workers to fund a single retiree beneficiary:

Some of the historical decline is related to the natural maturing of a pay-as-you-go social insurance program, but the projected future decline is due to the aging of the U.S. population. This ratio is of fundamental importance to the long-run fiscal health of the U.S. Social Security program. With currently scheduled tax rates and benefits, the system needs a worker-to-beneficiary ratio of about 2.8 to function at a pay-as-you-go level (meaning that tax revenue approximately equals benefit payments).

We may have already fallen below that ratio by now. If not, we're right at the cusp, because the Boomers started to hit 65 in 2011. It's probably gauche to link a previous comment, but this explains why the $3 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is nothing more than a bookkeeping entry and does not represent any assets, per se, any more than if someone were to write themselves a check for a million dollars while having only overdrawn accounts in the bank.

So, in order for Social Security to be as close to "pay as you go" as possible—which would be the closest approximation of fairness that can be achieved while retaining the pyramid scheme—it is imperative that the retirees make some sacrifices. Increasing the retirement age immediately to 68+ and means testing SS distributions (ie. turning it into a form of welfare rather than a pension) would be a good start.

Something needs to change. The current working generations (and all subsequent ones) did not make this mess. Continuing to pay on a cut down, welfare-like Social Security would be an example of merciful pity our generation is taking on the older, mathematically challenged generations, rather than any sort of ethical obligation.

It would be a great injustice if we, the next generations, have to pay more taxes than the Boomers did during their working years merely in order to pay them all the benefits *they* promised themselves that *we* would pay. It's only fair to make them work longer and to reduce the expenditures on the program to be something that's only given to those in need.

As for the allegation that means testing would burn up the savings, I doubt it: we already have welfare means testing and people are generally required to file income taxes anyway. That should have all the data that's necessary. If it's a problem, it would be simple for them to institute withholding on the SS checks based on a W4-like allowances system. That hasn't destroyed the ability of working households to function during the ~70 years it's been in place.

We have a moral obligation to break this vicious cycle, rather than passing it on to our children and the unborn.

At the root of it all, this is a government problem. The government created a defacto national identification number via social security, and after telling everyone that it would only be used to track an individuals earnings, they promptly let banks and a whole bunch of unrelated programs use the number as an identifier.

Thing is, the social security number was never designed to be an identifier so it isn't secure. Heck, on the older cards (not the new ones, so I guess it apparently changed) it said "Not for identification."

So, we have these agencies that use an improper and insecure identification scheme to track everything about you (Because we totally have to identify everyone some way, right? I mean, it's totally always been that way) and we wonder why it goes wrong? Not advocating for REAL ID or anything, just that if the government actually cared they'd instantly put a stop to the practice of anyone but the SSA using social security numbers as individual identifiers.

I think he is somehow using the fact that there wages have decreased in real terms, even more so as a share of GDP/per worker, as an excuse to show that he would have been in a much lower bracket 30 years ago then today. This can be easily illustrated by the minimum wage. When tracked by productivity per worker hour minimum wage should be about $21 an hour today in the US and instead it is less than $8. Luckily we decoupled that relationship in the 70's, so most people don't realize that the average American would be considered earning less than the minimum wage ( http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html ), if it continued to mirror worker productivity. So, if he could make as much today as he would have commanded in 1980, before we really pushed trickledown, then yes he would pay more in taxes today. Conversely as he seems to posit, if his labor was as worthless in 1980 as it is today he would have pay far less by the 1980 tax code.

While I agree that anyone under 55 needs to plan on there being no SS benefits when they retire, we've already passed the point of expenditures exceeding revenues.

Here's the money shot:

"Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period."

  Source: SSA

I mean it sounded so good back in the 1930's when most people were dead by age 65.

Not saying this won't happen some day, but the above wasn't really true when you look at the real statistics. The ~60 year life expectancy in the 30's was largely due to infant mortality. If you only look at those who lived past age 21 (ie. started paying *into* SS) it's a *lot* higher.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

The retirement portion seems best characterized as an annuity you are forced to participate in and pay into on an installment plan.

It does, however, have a twist that most annuities don't have. In a typical annuity, if pay in another dollar, you get at least as much (actuarial) benefit from that dollar as the previous dollar you paid in. Social Security retirement is the opposite, as you pay in more, the dollars give you less incremental benefit. In fact, the first dollar you put in returns a benefit six times that of the last dollar put in just before the taxable salary cap is hit (see bend points here).

I think they pay interest - about 2.4%

Rate: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/newIssueRates.html

Formula: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n3

And, well, all debt are IOUs. The difference is that Congress has put the SST “debt” into a special bucket all of its own. And, for budget purposes, does not consider it debt. Legally does this make a difference? I don’t know. But I do know it is poor accounting.

I think they pay interest - about 2.4%

Rate: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/newIssueRates.html

Formula: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n3

And, well, all debt are IOUs. The difference is that Congress has put the SST “debt” into a special bucket all of its own. And, for budget purposes, does not consider it debt. Legally does this make a difference? I don’t know. But I do know it is poor accounting.

Judging by your account ID, I guess you couldn't be TOO much younger than I am.

Back in the day, what the hell else was a woman going to do with her time? And how else were they going to get financial security for their old age?
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Social Security was created in '37. Medicare in '65. If you didn't have kids, you were looking at a pretty hard retirement.

And, of course, the more kids you had, the more farm hands you had - if that was your life (as it was, to a fair extent, for my grandparents).

So having kids often was the answer to financial security back then.

I think within 20-30 years, social security will be just about tapped out and unable to pay more than a small percentage of people that paid in.

Note that according to the latest Trustee's report the trust fund will pay full retirement benefits until 2033, and thereafter will still be paying 75% of scheduled benefits through 2086 -- not a "small percentage". It's been proposed that the deficit could be completely wiped-out by means-testing OASDI payouts...

The US starts the clock one a breath is made by the child.

Actually, most actuarial tables, e.g. those used by Social Security, include life expectancy at various ages, and most developed countries still have longer life expectancies than the US at most ages.

Social Security is fully funded and what funding problems it has are fairly easy to fix

In the SSA's 2012 Trustees report they admit at present they're 31% underfunded; it's going to get much worse quickly due to age demographics unless something significant changes.

If you think you can live as well on SS as on any working salary you are woefully misinformed, or deliberately facetious. Avg. SSI for disabled is $1,111, a minimum wage job at $7.25 is about $1250 a month, or $1160 every 4 weeks (this is what you get to live on each month if you are paid bi-weekly). I suppose you will pay FICA taxes out of those, but the wealthy have informed me that doesn't count as taxes.

If you are making less then minimum wage owning a business, it's time to take in your shingle.

Where did you get that 40K number? You illucidated right there a common 28% (or 25% to go down one bracket) federal taxes, then SSA taxes are ~5.5% ( http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240/~/2012-social-security-tax-rate-and-maximum-taxable-earnings ), plus state taxes commonly around 6% you're looking at 35%-40% of your income being taxed.

You have to understand how billing works in the US, we're bundlers, we like to say something only costs X and then give you a bill for that thing plus 4 other things we didn't even tell you about, true of bills for phone, internet, healthcare, car purchases, taxes, and every other american industry that thinks they can get away with it. It's not uncommon to have to pay a city and or county tax on top of the state tax, but yet we have such low taxes here in the US right?? Ironic everyone says we'd be taxed stupid to get real services when our taxes aren't far off from civilized countries to begin with.

60K USD isn't exactly "make you rich" territory in the US, but it's a hell of a lot of money for a teenager. That's pretty close to the median annual salary.

If by "pretty close" you mean "well above".

For 2010 (the most recent year for which statistics are available; the 2011 statistics should be available this month), the Social Security Administration figures show the median annual wage in the US as $26,363.55, and the average annual wage as $39,959.30.

So, $60K is more than twice the median annual wage and more than 1.5 times the average annual wage. Its also a more than the median household income ($50,054 in 2011, per the U.S. Census Bureau).

Social security is still cash positive right now.

Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011 The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply.

Yes I did. It is solvent. You're welcome to take a second to look that up.

What we argue about is when it might not be solvent, where the estimated dates vary by decades, and must necessarily assume any number of future conditions. It is worth being concerned about.

That $600 Billion / Year figure for military spending, on the other hand, is discretionary spending. That's outright spending of "right now" tax dollars and new debt, to supply the whole world with military resources and maintain our various ongoing operations overseas. Imagine Medicare were insolvent right now, because that's what we have today, and have had for ten years.

If you're feeling lazy, just scroll down to the first graph you see:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

And you'll notice here, in '97 it looked like we were 4 years from (here, Part A) insolvency:
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?cb=58&sctn=170&ch=1812

What happens when they attempt to hand out the 1,000,000,001th SSN? Or do government officials somehow trump combinatorics?

SSNs are recycled. They're only unique among the living.

Er... I stand corrected: http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html Q20.

Social security numbers are unique at any given time. However, they can be reused when a person dies.

Wrong. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/86

Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".

Yes, that's why it's down to 20 years.

The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

source

As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).

Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?

A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.

source

Funny, the second bullet point here says that sometimes more than one person can be assigned the same SSN.

I suspect that is what we humans call "an error".

Funny, the second bullet point here says that sometimes more than one person can be assigned the same SSN.

"WRONG. SSN + Date of Birth is the unique combination. "

So, you're claiming that there are duplicate SSNs, but held by people with different birth dates? The Social Security Administrations says they're unique.

You are wrong. SS still takes in more than it spends and is projected to do so for a while longer. It is projected to outlay more than it spends eventually, as would be expected given demographics.

I think it would be instructive for you to look at the the percentage of the Federal budget dedicated to defense versus that dedicated to Federal health care programs and then do a little bit of looking at trending.

But don't take my word for it, just ask the horse: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Let us ignore the fact that if we got rid of the military tomorrow the next day we would probably be overrun by some other country the following day. Also if we ignore all the other things external to military spending (jobs that are needed to support the military, the money military members spend, etc) your numbers still won't produce a balanced budget. There also is the interest on the debt that is still accumulating that will further increase the debt but we can even ignore that and your numbers don't work. For reference see the following:
There is the obligitory XKCD Money chart
The NY Times "Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent"
The NY Times "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent"
The NY Times "Four Ways to Slice Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal" best when viewed by department as it is pretty worthless otherwise
The U.S. National Debt Clock showing the 6 largest budget items.

It's not like eliminating all military spending would magically produce a $500+ billion surplus each year. Yes it would get us much closer to a balanced budget for a few years but there are also major structural issues with Social Security (you can find this in section II Overview pages 2-5) now projected to take in less in taxes that it distributes (in 2022 the trust fund will start to decrease as the interest no longer makes up difference) indefinitely. In 2033 it will be unable to meet the all current obligations. There are also similar issues with Medicare and Medicaid but those are going to be happening sooner.

Now back to real world were things have consequences and we are basically screwed. From what I have read in the past on this subject we are fully capable of digging our selves out of this hole as 13 years ago we were running a budget surplus at the federal level and actually retiring what debt could be. The problem is that everyone wants to keep their government benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc and we have politicians that know that cutting someone's benefit or raising someone's taxes is political suicide so it is just easier to put off the hard decisions until later. That way it is some other congress critter's problem when the shit really hits the fan. In the '90s with Clinton in the White House and Republicans in charge in the house and the senate it was easy with the economy booming the necessary changes were being made and people didn't feel it. Now in a bad economy these changes would be devastating and people might have to break out the pitch forks and torches which no elected official wants.

You do realize Social Security pays survivor benefits, right? Usually to the surviving spouse, but it can also go to surviving children or even surviving parents, and it can be a substantial and ongoing payout. See http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html/#a0=1

Or, you know, the ACTUAL result will be that benefits will be cut to people who have paid into the system for decades. Yeah, that's fair.

That sounds unfair until you realize that historical taxes for some big entitlements were lower than they are today: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

People starting jobs today are paying 300% more than someone who started their career in the 60s. It's unfair NOT to cut benefits for people who are about to retire. They didn't pay their fair share into the system for most of their careers.

Running health care as a business worked out really well for USA before the government got involved, I don't want to repeat it, so here is the argument I wrote down some time ago.

In 1920 or so? Everything stated there was a special, one of a kind situation. Look at what the other companies at large were doing. There's a reason there were major pushes to unionize workers (Ford was not a cause) Workers were generally exploited. Lifespans were significantly less than today. Various diseases ran rampant, all cured or mitigated since the government got involved. (After all, under Ron Paul, vaccinations et al would be up to the individual - wouldn't want to get the government involved in that now, would we?) The one thing I have to give Ron Paul - I believe him when he says he believes in these statements, he did watch a campaign worker and close friend die of a treatable disease after all. The thing he hasn't answered is how he feels about someone involved in an accident who doesn't have proof of insurance readily available and needs immediate and expensive care: does he let them die or treat them? If they cannot provide proof of financial capability to pay, at what point do they kick them out of the hospital (during the operation?). What if they do have insurance and die because of refusal to provide care?

No matter how you slice it, care will be given, and some won't be able to pay, which leads us down the same road we're on now, perhaps at a different rate, but the same road none the less. Unless you advocate the full set of (hopefully) unpalatable options listed above, you're in favor of the mandated insurance clause, and would actually be a proponent of at least basic universal healthcare. There's a set of diseases IMNSHO that would require additional health insurance, and of course most of the cosmetic type things would be excluded, and undergoing them might require purchase of additional insurance (as part of the procedure cost) to cover the potential complications thereof.

Of-course same thing applies to SS, etc.

SS is a different boat, I didn't but lightly skim this one after the Libertarian diatribe. SS is not quite a Ponzi scheme, and it was never meant to be the sole source of income for retired folks. Why isn't it a full Ponzi scheme, because it actually tried to set up a partial pay ahead balance system. You might want to visit the SS site for some amusing facts about internet myths.

Social Security Numbers were not originally intended to be unique identifiers today they are however used in such a manor. While you may be correct that some numbers may have been issued to more then one person or multiple numbers to a single person, I would have to assume that this is a clerical error on the part of the Social Security Administration, you should take a look at Q20 here http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html ..... well actually you should read all of them they are kinda interesting.

As far as it being useful as a form of identification, well if your employed you know that one of the first things they do as you are hired is record your social security number as required by law. Come to think of it when was the last time you filed taxes, renewed your license, applied for a birth certificate, ect. ect., I bet your SSN was required somewhere near the top of the forms right next to your full legal name.

Of course we redistribute wealth to the richest. The biggest tax expense is the military, which the richest suck up like oxygen, no matter how bad for security or our economy (to say nothing of health, life or limb). The second biggest tax expense is on medical care (which overlaps a lot with the military), which is spent on doctors who are among the richest (at $172K general, $275K specialist, they make 7-11x the median income), and pharmacos which are among the richest both as workers and as stockholders. Oil corps get $4 BILLION in tax expenses a year, which is a lot even when they're reporting $10B annual profits before the handout. Then there's the $TRILLIONS in handouts to the banks, their executives, top employees and shareholders, which are both by definition and in practice the richest of the rich.The $BILLIONS in US foreign aid is mostly spent on American products; they're sold abroad by the richest, who arrange that cozy loop.

The top 10% pay 70% of Federal income taxes, but state taxes are mostly regressive (so tax the rich less), and the other substantial taxes like Social Security and sales taxes are purely regressive, so tax the rich less. While the rich have all their income above about $107K (most of their total) protected from the approximately 10% SS tax. The top 10% of wage collectors got over $2.46 TRILLION in 2010, out of only about $6.01T total wages, almost 41%. But the amount of equity trade income that the other $10T in the US GDP pays out a year is vastly more paid to that top 10%, who pay something like half the tax rate on their capital gains than people do on regular income.

Taking less tax money from the rich is giving free government services to them. Apart from all the direct subsidies, the rich get far more government services, including security, the courts that are where they transact so much business, and all the R&D private labs have abandoned to the public to pay for instead that they immediately harness into products and even less tangible sources of wealth.

When you said "I prefer to hope to be one of them" you said it all. That motivation is what keeps most Americans who bother to think about the racket hoping it will continue. Of course the vast majority will never be anything but the victims of the racket.

Yes, they are getting brain damage. No, this isn't really a surprise to anyone. But I have to ask, isn't this why they get paid the big bucks? No one is forcing them to play this game. A quick breakdown finds that your average NFL player makes 1848% what Average Joe does. And no, that's not a typo.

Average US salary: $41,673.83

Avergage NFL Salary: $1.9 million

Median NFL Salary: $770,000.00

Average NFL career: 3.5 years

In that 3.5 years the average NFL player, at MEDIAN salary, will earn $2.7 million or roughly the amount that Average Joe will pull in after 65 years. (160 years if the NFL player gets the average salary.) IMHO they are selling their health later in life for the riches now.

People should know and defend their rights!!
Everyone (utility providers, eye doctor, dentists, etc) will ask you for a social security number by default. NONE of them are entitled to it and will suck it up if you refuse.

Or they might just refuse you service:

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-ssn

"If a business or other enterprise asks you for your SSN, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested."

If you look at an actuarial table from the USA: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html and plot the probability of death versus age, on a semi-log graph, you get a straight line after age 30. This means that the probability of death rises exponentially with time. It reaches 100% probability at age 121. Hence that's the hard limit. Interestingly, there's a slight change in slope around age 97: maybe some other aging mechanism takes over. Nevertheless, the change is slight, and the probability continues its lethal rise to 100%.

If we don't allow low wage jobs, then low skilled people can't get work at all.

True. The flip side to that problem though is that most everything in North America is priced for people that have High Wage jobs.

Try buying a house in a decent neighborhood on $24K per year, it just can't be done because most everything is priced for people earning 2 - 4 times that! Or haven't you noticed the increasing trend where families need to have both parents, and sometimes the kids, chipping in to buy a house?

In 1970 the average US home cost 23,400.00 and the average worker made 6,186.24, in other words a house cost 3.78 times what a person made.

Contrast that with 2004, same links as above, where the average US wage is now 35,648.55 but the price of homes has skyrocketed to an average of 221,000.00, or about 6.19 times what a person made. In order to get back to the 3.78 times value from the 70's a person needs to make at least 58,465.61, or the equivalent of 1.64 jobs at the average rate of pay. So you can take on two jobs or amortize your mortgage until your well into your retirement. And I haven't even really touched on the disparity in cities where the 24K wage job still exists but housing costs are so far above the average that the only place you can afford to live is a slum in a crime ridden neighborhood.

I'm sure if I went digging for 2011 numbers the disparity for wages vs housing would be even larger. So yeah, you're right, the 24K wages can and should exist because not everyone has the skills to command a higher wage job. But unlike the 70's the average wage earners can no longer to afford a home for their families, housing ownership is now solely in the purview of people who can command higher wages. Its unsustainable, particularly with the wage gap increasing, and we as a society better get our act together to ensure we're providing affordable housing in nice neighborhoods so people making that small amount of money can actually afford it, otherwise those "Occupy" movements are going to get worse and start getting violent.

The docs.
Can I get Medicare if I am under age 65?
If you are under age 65 and disabled, and have been entitled to disability benefits under Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board for 24 months, you will be automatically entitled to Medicare Part A and Part B beginning the 25th month of disability benefit entitlement. You do not need to do anything to enroll in Medicare. Your Medicare card will be mailed to you about 3 months before your Medicare entitlement date.

What We Mean By Disability
The definition of disability under Social Security is different than other programs. Social Security pays only for total disability. No benefits are payable for partial disability or for short-term disability.

"Disability" under Social Security is based on your inability to work. We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if:
You cannot do work that you did before;
We decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and
Your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.

Question: How does the federal government define "disability"?
The definition of "disability" varies depending on the purpose for which it is being used. Federal and state agencies generally use a definition that is specific to a particular program or service. For example:

For purposes of nondiscrimination laws (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act), a person with a disability is generally defined as someone who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more "major life activities," (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.
To be found disabled for purposes of Social Security disability benefits, individuals must have a severe disability (or combination of disabilities) that has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months or result in death, and which prevents working at a "substantial gainful activity" level.
State vocational rehabilitation (VR) offices will find a person with a disability to be eligible for VR services if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or results in a "substantial impediment" to employment for the applicant.

Who is eligible for Medicare?

Generally, Medicare is available for people age 65 or older, younger people with disabilities and people with End Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant). Medicare has two parts, Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance). You are eligible for premium-free Part A if you are age 65 or older and you or your spouse worked and paid Medicare taxes for at least 10 years. You can get Part A at age 65 without having to pay premiums if:

You are receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.
You are eligible to receive Social Security or Railroad benefits but you have not yet filed for them.
You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.

While most people do not have to pay a premium for Part A, everyone must pay for Part B if they want it. This monthly premium is deducted from your Social Security, Railroad Retirement, or Civil Service Retirement check. If you do not get any of these payments, Medicare sends you a bill for your Part B premium every 3 months.

I dunno, I was surprised to learn just how (extremely) high up in the 99% I am, though I have and continue to make a lot of money. I was kinda shocked to learn this year that the median personal income is only about $26K. Though I live/work in NYC, which is 1% land, even for people living like the 10% everywhere but on triple the income.

But indeed I realized all that only when OWS put "the 1%/the 99%" into the meme pool, and I wondered where I stood in it. I'm sure a lot of people also started looking at themselves in that frame for the first time this year (one reason I've never seen the income boundary of the 1% mentioned on TV, even after OWS and "the 99%" got some coverage).

I don't think a violent revolution is the way it will go. I think the country will continue to dumb down, the 1% media feed Americans a culture of distraction and division, so people are constantly scared of each other more than of the predators, while insisting on protecting the rich to protect their unreachable dream of becoming rich. The 1% is extremely sophisticated in its control, and has better modeling of the 99% all the time, and more complete data. The populace is awash in illegal stimulants that people have accepted losing their rights over, and even more awash in legal anxiety neutralizers that get people to accept anything that's explained away. Huxley's Brave New World looks more plausible every day.

On the other hand, the main advantage of the 1% is their organization and media infrastructure, which gives them a worldview in which to operate according to their self-interest. Which they use to pervert the worldview of the 99%, who cannot operate in their distorted worldview effectively enough to change things, or even to see their own self-interest. But network media levels that playing field. It's why SOPA and PIPPA are so important to the 1%, and rocketing through Congress. It's why the DMCA immunity decided in the story we're discussing is so important, and why SOPA threatens it. A large, dynamic, technologized society like America's, and its global associates, can really defy most expectations, even pretty quickly. So there's hope. Partly because it's too early, even if several watersheds have been passed. But also partly because without hope, there's doom, and insisting on hope is necessary if there's going to be hope. Life is complicated, and plenty of surprises are pleasant.

Happy New Year.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/COLA/AWI.html#Series

Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.

Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.

Not true. cf. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-ssn