Slashdot Mirror
Mathematics of the Social Security "Crisis"
ScottyB writes "Here's a good start for reading into the economics and history of the much-discussed 'crisis' in Social Security. It's from the NY Times magazine, so you know the drill...'A Question of Numbers.'"
The goal of the republicans is not to revamp social security. The goal is to abolish it entirely, along with medicaid. The easiest way to do so is to completely break it by privatizing it, while at the same time bankrupting the government. Then, of course, the private managers will be to blame. Something will have to go to balance the budget... and then they will eliminate social security. Now the tax cuts and war start to make sense. Expect a budget crisis shortly!
Oh I forgot, they never put any of this money away for people's retirement like was originally planned. This money is part of their everyday operating expenses. It's just another way to get more tax money.
It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
and basically it says that there is a greate deal of misinformation coming from the right.
Over the next 75 years, SS will run at a loss of 3.3T USD. Sounds like a lot huh? Well by comparison, the Bush tax cuts (both of them) will result in less revenue to the tune of 11.6T USD over the next 75 years. So even if you revoke 30% of the Bush tax cut, you can pay for SS over the next 75 years (or maybe a little more to cover interest since they tax revenue and SS benefits demand dont have similar demand curves).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
...and it solves both the food and the social security problem in one fel swoop.
Beep beep.
It's always the same. Every "debate" or discussion about the numbers behind social security and they never talk about the numbers that matter. For people under 35, the most important number is the number of dollars in an employee's pocket on payday after deductions. As things stand right now, there's at least 30 years - at least seven presidential terms - between now and when those people start collecting. Chances are some politician is going to wreck social security between now and then even if the gloom and doom predictions don't come true. That means on top of the hefty deductions from your weekly paycheck, if you're under 35, you also have to assume social security won't be there for you and you have to put that much more money away personally. That is the number that matters.
As for this article... Solving the social security budget gap by adding 2% to the payroll tax sounds great... Tax the corporations! Well, it would be great, but corporations take the payroll tax into account when they determin how much you cost them as an employee. As far as they're concerned, the payroll tax is part of the employee's compensation package... Raise the tax, and you're going to see a corresponding drop in salaries or a corresponding rise in unemployment over the long term.
Because most people have no idea how to save money for retirement. So a few people properly plan their retirement and do better than they would with Social Security, while everyone else blows their money on late night infomercial products or has it swindled away by private enterprises promising you will "Retire with a million dollars!". This puts an additional burden on the welfare system, and worse, these people are retired so they have no chance of going on welfare-to-work programs or similar things. The economic dead weight from letting people blow their retirement savings and then looking for a free handout would be tremendous.
The enterprise of journalism, which is suppoesed to help citizens in a democracy sort through
Since when has that been true? Take off your rose colored blinders. That's never what journalism has been about. Journalism has been about promoting a view, detracting from a view, and most of all selling media. If you want to see for yourself, go to a library and look back at 17th, 18th, and 19th century newspapers. Journalism has always been a taudry business. This business about journalists being the crusading do-gooder out to help democray is a post-World War II fantasy.
and, as far as viewers are concerned, get away with it.
That's in your opinion. They don't get away with in my view, because I refuse to consume their product and to become their product. Remember, when you watch most media, you are not only consuming their product but you become the product: eyeballs to an advertiser.
increasingly sophisticated misinformation that comes from a variety of interested parties is in a state of free-fall
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
either actively subverted by self-interested and sociopathic organizations and individuals
What a load of garbage. There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions. Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
or simply crumbling under the unique demands and exigencies of continued survival in the mass media marketplace.
If you feel like a media outlet is not being principled in the face of competition, than abandon that outlet. There are others. You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
The heart of the matter is that when Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity lie about something, no one is yet able to mod them down.
That is not only an amazing generalization but also fundamentally incorrect. Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion. There is very little in terms of opinion which meets the definition of a lie. On top of all that, you are in fact able to "mod them down". Disregard their opinion, and move on to another source.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them. This is, despite your view, a truly great thing.
You need to celebrate diversity. Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
Basically, what's wrong is that many people do not save money for their retirement. No doubt, most of these people do not read /., and yet are probably still aware that they should be saving money for their retirement, but either lack the ability or the will to do so.
The easy answer is to say, "Oh well, that's their fault," but when these people get to be in their 60's, 70's, etc., we as a society are not going to simply let them starve, go homeless, get sick, etc. Social Security could be scaled back by extending the age of collection, etc., and/or it's functionality could be wrapped up into other welfare programs, but it cannot be simply dropped.
Additionally, Social Security is something like a Ponzi scheme, and as such, if you stop paying into it now, then those who have already paid into it won't be able to get back what they put into it. So, it's either tough luck for the under-[insert age here] crowd in the future, or it's tough luck for the baby boomers now. Guess who will win that one?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No additional risk, and with some obvious added benefits. I'd welcome any extra freedom the government threw my way, even if I did not take advantage of it. Not that I personally would invest in US Treasury debt.
The larger fact is that basic problem is a too large federal deficit, not a systemic social security problem, and the proposed "reform" makes the underlying problem worse, not better.
Life is unpredictable not everyone who is down and out is irresponcible. Here is a reality check, you get cancer and your insurance policy drops you, yea it happens. your retirement just went to paying for cemo (sp) the reality is social security is there for a reason. I think you shoudl be allowed to direct the investment of a portion of yoru social security however that should be it.
Social commentary from someone with the username PornMaster that offends as it invokes God? It must be slashdot.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Please read this article, it's probably the most well researched and insightful look at the current health of our social security program. The end conclusion: It's Fine. Seriously. No Really. Totally OK.
If you took the worst case scenario given out by the Social Security Trustees as the future exactly as it will happen, Everyone will continue to recieve 100% of benefits until 2048, and then, after that, we'd recieve only 75% of benefits, and the system would continue to hum. That's if the worst case scenario mixture of immigration and ecomonmic slowdown happen, and absolutley NOTHING done to the system. Their realistic scenario call for complete 100% solvency of the system for the next 75 years, again, with NOTHING done to the system.
Social Security is the best running government program ever devised in this country. Everyone here will be able to recieve their retirement benefits that they've been paying into their whole lives.
The Social Security "crisis" stems from that 25% reduction in benefits in 2048. If we were to give everyone 100%, then we'd run about a $3 trillion deficit in SS over the next 75 years, in the mean time, Medicare is projected to start deficit spending in only 10 years, and will run an $11 trillion hole. And both of these self financed systems have a better outlook than out general acocunt budget, the pot of money that pays for the rest of the government. Best guess estimates are that our government will go $15 TRILLION MORE into debt over that same $75 years.
So what is more in crisis, $3 trillion that we don't need to even go into deficit for, or $15 that we absolutely must? Our current $440 billion deficit is the real crisis.
The president and all of the conservative commentors here want to reneg on the deal President Reagan made in 1983 when he reformed social security. He raised payroll taxes beyond the amount needed so we would run a surplus, and that would go into a trust fund that would pay for the burden of the Baby Boomer retirement. That trust fund was mandated by law to buy treasury bills, which have consequently been used to finance the upper class tax cuts. Basically, the president has done a transfer of wealth from the working class who payed more into the system than they had to so the super rich could mooch off the government even more.
I Repeat: SOCIAL SECURITY IS FINE! RTFA!
Th
Journalism has always been a taudry business.
That's tawdry.
We have always put journalists on a pedestal in this country, because we understand their importance to our way of life.
Bias in journalism is like drunk driving among teenagers. Some Conservatives say, let's take away the rules, since "you'll never stop those kids anyway," but I think the adults in the country know better - let alone remember better, from pretty recent times.
That's in your opinion.
No. That's a fact.
Do I need to cite surveys confirming widely held beliefs among Americans in various notorious items of misinformation?
Everything you disagree with is not misinformation. Everyone has an interest. Regardless of how much people might hand-wring about it, everyone has an interest.
Translation: everything is fine. No need to worry as we gut the rule book and change the face of American mass media.
Individuals or organizations promoting their view is hardly sociopathic.
Why have the news at all? Why not just have 24/7 commercials?
This is not Soviet Russia. People here have jobs, and we expect them to do them. When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit. We can perfectly well tell the difference between CBS and Fox News Network.
I wonder if your bank cleaned out your account, you would claim it was your own fault, because "I'm a sucker for trusting them with all that money."
You somehow think that intense competition and corporate involvement with media is new. It's not. It is, again, exceedingly old and well established within this country. You seem to have this perception that before a certain point in history things were good with regards to journalism, and then something happened, and now it is bad.
You seem to be ignorant of the history of regulation in American media.
Google the Fairness Doctrine.
What's happening now on television and radio is quite new. Things were much better even 10 years ago. Basically, we had a successful conservative-sponsored scheme to eliminate the rules.
Both of the people you mention are fundamentally pushers of opinion
Fox News Network puts paid liars on TV. It lies about its motives and its methods. When it's convenient, its talking heads are "commentators" and are supposed to be excused for their more blatant prevarications. They know full well their audience doesn't understand the distinction any more than they know who was behind 9-11. They just think they are "watching the news."
Making this point in itself is deceptive, since egregious bias in Fox News Network's ostensible "hard journalism" is well-documented.
It seems like you most upset because people with whom you disagree or believe to be lying are able to have power and influence despite your disapproval of them.
I am upset because there is nothing that separates this country from China but journalists and voting booths, and some Conservatives are in the process of crossing journalists off the list.
Diversity of thought, diversity of opinion, and diversity of expression. If you can't accept a point of view, or the person giving it, then ignore that person and move on. There is no need to clamor for censorship.
I do not clamor for censorship, and your misunderstanding is telling. Moderation on slashdot does not censor anything. It does what it is designed to do; control prominence; making the good stuff rise to the top, and relegating bad ideas, incorrect facts, propaganda, deception, and trolling to the bottom.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
from Wiki:
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
"There are few very issues with objectively correct or incorrect answers or solutions."
There are, however, quite a number that do have "correct" answers if you are willing to postulate that the commercial interests of a small number of people should not be more important than the good of the community.
This is true at local, state, national, and world scales.
The media used to regard the news as public service, and not so much a source of profit. This changed when they noticed two facts - their news hours have very high viewership by people who earn and spend money, and that even more people tuned in for senational news. I saw a history of TV with regards to that point, and IIRC there were three or four major scandals that got national coverage which were the beginning of the end. So yes it's never been great, but I think it is worse now. Any time news is treated as a money maker, you can forget about hearing about important issues from ANY viewpoint. It's too much like work to listen to important issues.
I agree censorship is a bad idea, but the problem with a pervasive, persuasive and centralized media (e.g. ClearChannel) in a democracy is that without a critically thinking population the system becomes unstable. A functioning democracy is a self correcting system, but a hidden dependancy of that system is that accurate, verifiable information is provided to the people who must make the decisions. I.e., the voters. It's usually AVAILABLE, granted, but if they don't have it and settle for what they are told by an organized media the end result is EXACTLY the same as if they don't have it. If you can get statistically large numbers of them to dance to your tune, you have effectively taken over the country. The key question is, do enough people engage critical thinking to avoid the electorate being systematically manipulated by misinformation?
Not that I advocate changing the system, except perhaps to compel news programs to function on a non-profit basis. People get the government they deserve in a democracy, that's pretty much the rule. So it's up to them, and if they want to throw it away they can.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
July 27, 1998 Were they singing a different tune back then? Is there only a crisis when a Democrat says there's a crisis?
I'm sorry but "only two people working for every person drawing Social Security" will not work. Social Security will not be able to support itself. Now you may not agree with what has been proposed by the President to reform Social Security, but you shouldn't be so childish and stupid to deny that a problem exists.
--
It works.
Free Flat Screens | Free iPod Photo
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
We aren't savages.
If we were, then the idea of privitizing Social Security would be no big deal. If someone misinvested by putting all his retirement money into Tyco or Enron stock, fine. We let him die broke and impoverished and that's that.
But we're not savages and we won't do that. If a person screws up and loses all their retirement we'll cover them some other way via state or local government instead of via the Feds. You'll still pay for that person's retirement, just not in a predictable way, and it'll be more expensive as more poverty retakes America's elderly.
Social Security is the SINGLE most effective government program ever. Elderly poverty was endemic in the 1930's and before. Unless you were really rich, you stood a really good chance of dying poor and dragging your children down with you. Now, that's much less prevelant.
You object because you want to invest in a free market? Great. Most investors lose money, but if you really want to invest outside of the SS program, what's stopping you? Go ahead. You just can't risk this small percentage of your earnings. That goes to make sure you won't be too much of a burden on the rest of us when you get old.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
well, of course, it isn't in the constitution. but the constitution does give congress the power to make laws to deal with the problems of society.
apparently congress thinks it's more important to make sure old people aren't starving on the streets than to give DataStalker an ideological hand-job.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
You're going to pay one way or the other, either you do it in an orderly fashion through a system like Social Security or you pay through externalized costs of destitute elderly. Plan on paying for increases in crime, emergency services, healthcare, etc. Or do you think this nation is going to just let old people starve and freeze in the streets? Would you really treat Veterans who hadn't been able to save enough because of constant medical problems not covered by the VA this way? How do you propose to help people whose pensions the courts have stripped through criminal mismanagement by their former employers? You're method is just tough luck, sucks to be you?
No society has been able to progress and remain competitive with the shortsighted advice you've proposed here. Social Security is just a cheaper way to protect rights than "letting the market take care of it". Wealth equals power, the Social Security payments ensure that old people have the power to defend their rights instead of depending on the government to make sure they aren't violated.
The word justice is all over the Constitution and the Federalist Papers; Social Security fits the Founding Father's idea of justice, hence it's in the Constitution. Your argument about being something that people are unwilling to do for themselves is a canard. Only a half-hearted attempt to understand this nation's founding and history could lead you to the conclusions you've vomited all over this page.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
If we tax at 0%, revenue is $0.
If we tax at 100%, revenue is $A (where A > $0 - this is basically Communism)
If we tax at something in between, let's say 50% for the sake of argument, revenue is $B (where B > A - this is Capitalism).
Ok, now draw a single line connecting those points. Obviously you can't do it with a straight line, it has to be curved. And therein lies the heart of the matter.
If the tax rate is below a certain point, cutting taxes decreases revenue.
If the tax rate is above a certain point, cutting taxes increases revenue.
You cannot argue that cutting taxes always decreases revenue. You cannot argue that cutting taxes always increases revenue. What's arguable is whether we're currently above or below the point where it switches from one to the other.
State pension systems lack a number of basic features that define Ponzi schemes, and so are fundamentally different:
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Granted SS is not an intentionally criminal enterprise, I think it's intentions are good, but it does have a strong resemblence to a pyramid scheme thanks to demographics. People are living longer which is not compensated for in the plan. To wit:
* There is no belief that there are large profits coming from something; rather, it is clear that these are pay-as-you go systems, where workers (at any given time) are providing money to those who have retired.
Sure there is a belief. There is a belief that the profits are going to come from future taxpayer dollars. Problem is that people are living longer and the population growth isn't sufficient to maintain this, especially after the baby boomers retire. The only reason it is a "pay-as-you-go" system is because Congress can't help themselves and raid SS for every extra penny that comes in every year for purposes other than Social Security. That money should be invested for future retirees and used for no other purpose but it isn't.
* There is no growth of incoming funds driven by the enticement of high returns over a short period of time, with new investors continually entering in order to support payouts to early investors.
There is a continual growth of incoming funds from working taxpayers funding "high" returns for existing retirees (read early investors). Granted it isn't to the level (50%+ returns) one usually associates with a Ponzi scheme but the principle is basically the same. Eventually demographics will catch up and the number of retirees will be too large to be supported by the workers without changes to the program. That's exactly how pyramid schemes fail.
* State pension systems are in some way insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in.
If it were truly an insurance program that intended to remain solvent, it would have to adjust either the retirement age or the benefits paid. Besides, do you know how insurance companies work? They take in payments, invest that money and then pay out what they have to in claims. Whatever is left over is profit. But SS money is NOT invested (pay-as-you-go remember?) so it really does not resemble an insurance program at all.
* Because receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that timeframe, there will never be a sudden collapse.
The amount of money that comes in from taxes is HIGHLY variable and is not at all easy to calculate. Don't know where you got that idea. The reason California found itself way overbudget these last few years is precisely because they planned to spend money and then ended up with less in tax revenue than expected. Predicting tax revenue is anything but a science. One good recession will screw up even the best models.
* General tax revenues can be used to supplement worker payments into the systems, although many taxpayers will be unhappy with such supplementation. Similarly, benefits can be reduced through the political process, either across-the-board or by reducing benefits to the well-off, although there will clearly be opposition by those who will get less.
You ever tried to take away benefits or salary from someone? There is a reason SS is called the third rail. A politician touches it and he dies. True, in theory benefits can be adjusted but the political reality is that taking benefits away from old people is political suicide and not likely to happen anytime soon.
When something is "the news" we do not expect propaganda, nor do we expect this 3rd-grade relativist "all news is propaganda" bullshit.
Whether you get propaganda is often dependent on your own viewpoint. Consider the following statements that build with each iteration, and consider how they can be taken by people reading them.
Adam was killed.
Adam was killed by Bob.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate.
Adam was killed by Bob with a gun that was stolen from his roommate, who is a police officer.
Depending on the details presented, which are often constrained by time on TV/radio or space in print, one could have various views based on the information presented. It could be a reaction that crime is a problem, that gun ownership is a problem, that gun theft is a problem, that gun storage is a problem, or that carelessness with guns is a problem. Depending on your viewpoint, each person will take each statement differently. For some people, a given statement will reinforce their beliefs, and for others, it will fly in the face of them. Some will be inquisitive and ask for more detail, and some will ignore it entirely because it doesn't affect them.
I bounce around a lot of news organizations -- CNN, Fox, AP, Reuters, NYT, LA Times, OC Register, NPR, and a bunch of others. I even visit Pravda's English site sometimes, if only for the occasional chuckle at the oddities that appear there. Most of the stories are pretty much the same from organization to organization, no matter who originally wrote them, because journalism is, at its core, a pretty basic thing. Who, what, when, where, why, how?
But if the story is more complex, or has conflicting information, then it gets much more difficult. For example, You have ten different sources for information; which information is considered the best? You have some long-time informants telling you one thing, and they've always panned out in the past, but you have two new informants telling you something quite different, neither of which know about each other but whose stories are almost exactly alike. Whom do you believe? Which do you put first in your story, and how much emphasis do you give them? From twelve hours of interviews, which quotes do you select to tell the story the most accurately? What does your gut tell you? Has your gut ever been wrong?
Being a journalist is seriously hard work and can be painful, because no matter what you say, someone is going to say that you said too much or not enough, that you slanted something this way or that. I do not envy them.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
State pension plans invest deductions from payroll or state contributions in marketable securities. These securities receive interest income or capital appreciation and grow over time. Retirees then draw from this fund in the form of pension payments.
Social security invests NOTHING. Current contributions are immediately paid out to beneficiaries. The only deviation from this is when collections are greater than payouts, in which case the money is forwarded to the "general fund" and spent for government programs. The social security system receives an IOU from the government in the amount of the surplus that is filed somewhere, and is sometimes referred to as a "treasury security". Unlike a treasury security, however, it cannot be traded. It is not marketable in any way. No funds are set aside to meet these pseudo-obligations. As a security, these instruments have zero value and are only a political instrument used to cover the fact that payroll taxes are in excess of what is currently needed, and is used for non-social security purposes.
The social security system really is a lot like a ponzi scheme, but one supposedly supported by the ability of the U.S. Government to raise money (through taxation). As long as the government is willing to support social security when payroll taxes don't cover benefit payouts, we're fine. It's been the other way around for years now. But I sorta doubt that the feds will be able to do that when I retire.
Congress issued bonds against what was the big Social Security cash hoard a while back, no?
So those bonds (or loans, if I'm thinking incorrectly) will come calling sometime in the 2030's?
I think that is the point where many analysts are saying that SS will be calling for the replayment on that.
But who pays it?
The US Taxpayer. Somehow, somewhere, the $ to repay the $ which was taken against the social security funds will need to be repaid.
I think THIS is the bulk of the problem.
Solve this, and make it so that we can't pass expenditures that aren't already funded.... basically cut those government credit cards up.
http://slashdot.org/~tf23/journal
It was an entirely faked document. Right wing overdrive? I guess CBS is part of it (they have fully discredited the story after a review, and fired those responsible), and anyone who thinks that a "historic" document using modern MS Word fonts is fishy must be a "right winger".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The Economist is also quite good, but not cheap. It seems like they have fewer articles but each leaves you with a decent amount of knowledge about a subject. I also like that on the subjects I know more than the average journalist about, tech and finanacial news, they generally hit the important notes which makes me feel much better when reading an article on Eastern European politics or other topics I know considerably less about.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Taxes of 12-odd percent of our income are taken for SS.
That's 12.4% (6.2% of which is paid by the employer). Unless, of course, you make more that $87,000, in which case, your rate can be significantly lower. Someone with an annual income of $500,000 would pay about 2.16% in FICA Tax (Federal Insurance Contributions Act, a name we will get back to in a minute). Someone with $500,000 of unearned income (i.e. dividends, capital gains) would pay 0.00% in FICA tax. That makes the Social Security tax a regressive tax, in that low wage earners pay a higher percentage than high wage earners.
If you invested that money in private accounts, you'd be wealthy by the time you retired, even if you made some seriously bad investment decisions.
Yes, and if twinkies grew on pine trees, nobody would ever go hungry. The money is not a pension. It is not a retirement plan. It's not even yours. It's a fee you pay for the privledge of working in this country. In addition, it is an insurance policy. (Note the acronym above "Federal INSURANCE Contributions Act") It's poverty insurance. Congratulations! You're covered.
I'll assume you own a home and pay for fire insurance. I would even bet that your state or local government requires that you purchase fire insurance. With a little luck, your house will never burn down. After 20 years of good luck, are you going to start calling your insurance company to demand "return on your investment?" Feel free to try. Give them a call and tell them you're being "ripped off" because you haven't collected on your investment. Tell them that you're tired of them giving "your" money to people who weren't smart enough not to burn down their houses.
There's a difference between an investment and an expense. Insurance is an expense. Get used to it.
I know it's a social program, it's about the social contract and so on, but if the social contract is as one-sided as SS is, well, I want out. Period.
It IS a social contract. And if you want out of the contract move to Argentina, asshole. That's ssuming they'll take you. That's your way out of Social Security. Go somewhere else. Get a job making sneakers for Nike in Southeast Asia. Do it today and you'll never pay another cent in FICA.
I've never understood how so many the rich in this country think that they get no benefit from taxation. Do you think that your investments would be doing well if senior citizens were starving in the streets. Do you think that the social unrest that comes with extreme poverty is going to leave you untouched? (That's not to mention that the rich are the primary beneficiaries of most of the government spending in this country.)
You want to live here, pay your fair share and stop bitching. If you don't want to pay your fair share, what makes you think we want you here?
If you're making over $100K and you can't find another 12% of your income to stash away, you're doing something wrong. If you're making significantly less than $100K, you're probably going to need social security and you'd better hope it's there when you need it.
By the way, I'm rich... I'm also undertaxed.
Support SETI@home
But Social Security is bad insurance and a terrible investment.
Repeat after me: "Social Security is not an investment."
It offers a negative return on your money as a retirement program
Repeat after me: "Social Security is not a retirement program."
and negligible benefits as insurance.
Which are better than no benefits at all to those who need them.
The death benefit, for example, is $255, which isn't enough even for the most skimpy of funerals.
Repeat after me: "Social security if not life insurance. It's there to make sure you can eat at least once a day, even if you lose everything else."
I have a right to say that I want a specific fire insurance policy. If it's sold, I can buy it.
Yes, but this is not an individual policy. It's "social insurance." Insurance for society. Your retirement benefit is only one aspect and it's there to make sure you get to eat when you get old. The reason is that society benefits if you aren't starving. Society also benefits if you get to enough money to afford food after you get brain damaged in a motorcycle accident.
You have the right to buy any supplemental retirement insurance you want. In fact you'd better, assuming you want to do anything besides eat in your retirement.
I have a right to invest with about ten billion companies. If there's an investment approach, there's a fund to support it.
Yes, and you have a right to purchase any auto insurance that you want, but you still need that basic liability coverage (at least in California). If you want comprehensive, spend the extra bucks, but you can't drop your liability coverage. It's part of the social contract you entered when you got your driver's license.
What if I could invest in anything I wanted under the umbrella of social insurance?
I'm assuming that, out of self interest, you would choose the policy that you think benefits you the most, and that benefits society the least. Apparently you are short sighted enough to think that if your neighbor is starving, it doesn't affect you.
That's what Bush is proposing with Social Security Private Accounts. Tell me what's wrong with that. It seems to me that it's common sense that if you invest money for your retirement, or to protect you when you're sick and disabled, you should be able to manage that money on your own.
You are currently able to do all of that and much, much more with your own money. Go right ahead. I reccomend that everyone do exactly that. Invest for your retirement. Buy disability insurance. Repeat after me: "The FICA taxes I paid are NOT my money. It is money that I am required to spend for the benefit of society. The benefit I receive from this is beyond the financial benefit I receive during my retirement."
And, of course, that is most definitely not why GWB wants private accounts. The purpose of private accounts is to bankrupt a successful social insurance program in order to demonstrate the "failure of the welfare state" which "places undue burden on the wealthy."
Social Security hurts the poor more than anyone else, since they don't have the investment money we do. SS /is/ their investment money. If they had the freedom to invest it as they wanted, everyone would be better off. That's my argument, pure and simple.
Another GOP myth (i.e. lie). It is predominantly the poor who receive more of social security than they paid in FICA taxes. (That would be even more true if we got rid of the damn FICA ceiling.) For the wealthy, the converse is true, which explains the GOP maneuvers to kill it.
Support SETI@home
I hate this kind of "argument".
Even though both sides have made mistakes, if you put CBS's long, distinguished history up against Fox's tawdry few months, there is a great difference in quality. It's the same comparing Rather's 40+ years in print and TV journalism and comparing it with O'Reilly's distinguished hisory on Inside Edition or Hannity's history of... oh yeah, nothing. Saying they're both "the same" is akin to saying that Pol Pot was like Abe Lincoln because they both declared war and, as a result, got people killed.
Your statement is both disingenuous and stupid. But I guess, from your use of it, that Fox has also lifted the level of logic in this country by training it's viewers well in their tactics.
That is all.