Social Security

[JOEBIALEK]

According to the Social Security Act, "the purpose of Social Security is to provide insured persons with payments by way of a retirement benefit, survivors benefit, sickness benefit, and to substitute for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance, a system of insurance against injury or death caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment." In order to finance social security, a Social Security Fund was established, financed by contributions made by the workers and their employers. All benefits, administrative expenses, and capital expenditures are paid out from the Fund.

But according to government figures, "while Social Security takes in more than it spends right now, the situation reverses when the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) begins to retire in 2010. Unless the system is overhauled, Social Security by 2013 will be spending more than it collects in taxes and will be broke by 2032."

I will be 69 years old in 2032. I will have paid a very large percentage of my income into a government plan and will have nothing to show for it. Accordingly, Social Security payroll deductions should end for anyone born in 1965 or later and be shifted to a 401(K) plan so they will reap the rewards of their investment when they retire. Those born in 1964 and before should continue some Social Security payroll deduction along with some government subsidy to cover the difference.

With all this talk of tax refunds fueled by a government surplus coupled with the enormous corporate tax breaks given out by our government, I am sure we could find enough money to subsidize a transition plan to save our retirement money.

[Write Winger]

Hey I know...lets dump this pyrimid scheme and let me invest that 15% of my income in the stock market...then I will sign a waver saying that the government is not responsible for me when I get old. Freedom...what a concept!

[Lava]

Originally posted by Write Winger, Hey I know...lets dump this pyrimid scheme and let me invest that 15% of my income in the stock market...then I will sign a waver saying that the government is not responsible for me when I get old. Freedom...what a concept!

So investing in a high risk scheme instead of a safe one - precisely what freedoms does that give you?

Regards, Lava!

[VXerick]

SS is only as safe and strong as the government. SS is a contract between the government and the people. It can be rescinded at any time. It won't be because it's a politician's worst nightmare. There will come a time when the politicians may have to decide between decreasing allotments for other programs to keep SS afloat or decide that legalizing euthanasia for the aging population is the best course of action.

[Zeebadee]

"The 1960 Supreme Court case of Fleming v. Nestor established that retirees have no legal right to their benefits. Congress can cut benefit levels or deny benefits entirely through force of law, and workers even after a lifetime of contributions have no legal recourse." (http://www.conginst.org/socialsecuri...LEM/myths.html)

You call this a safe investment??

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Lava,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lava,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Write Winger, Hey I know...lets dump this pyrimid scheme and let me invest that 15% of my income in the stock market...then I will sign a waver saying that the government is not responsible for me when I get old.  Freedom...what a concept!

So investing in a high risk scheme instead of a safe one - precisely what freedoms does that give you?

Regards, Lava![/b][/quote]

isn't the determination of 'safe' or 'high risk' a totally subjective one? so why not let people decide for themselves where to invest and how much risk they are willing to take? If social security is so 'good' why use FORCE to get people to comply?

michael

leopard,

exactly. Difficult as it is for the socialists to understand, the federal government has no business taking money from our paychecks by force of law to cover a retirement scheme. Of course, SS was/is a scheme for votes. Forced 'voluntary' retirement schemes are no better.

"You can have your money back and spend it as you wish so long as we agree with how you spend it."

Your paycheck is yours to do with as you see fit. If you want to invest it in a business, play the stock market, or 'waste' it...so be it.

[Jet]

But according to government figures, "while Social Security takes in more than it spends right now, the situation reverses when the baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) begins to retire in 2010. Unless the system is overhauled, Social Security by 2013 will be spending more than it collects in taxes and will be broke by 2032."

Well, that's utter crap. First, consider the fact that the boomers will start dying en masse in the 20s. Second, the fact you quoted is simply wrong; the most pessimstic view of SS places the bankruptcy date close to where you say it is (in 2037, IIRC), but the expected year, given that 4529056.5 variables that are largely unknown stay the same, is closer to the 2070s.


Anyway, there are some things I don't see what the point in them is in SS, which is why I pretty much oppose it:

- Why the hell does the government need two different budgets, when having one is more efficient, more flexible, better for the debt (as the period in which SS is in surplus comes before the period in which it'll be in deficit), and based on a more sensible tax?
- Why the hell does the government need to distribute social security to people who can live on their own? It's like giving welfare to the middle-class.

So, I say, scuttle it, and replace it with need-based aid, like with welfare. If you're 30 and concerned about things now, invest in a savings program, and the government will even ensure it for you in case the bank goes bankrupt.

[Mia]

Quote by: Leopard, So investing in a high risk scheme instead of a safe one - precisely what freedoms does that give you? Regards, Lava!

isn't the determination of 'safe' or 'high risk' a totally subjective one? so why not let people decide for themselves where to invest and how much risk they are willing to take? If social security is so 'good' why use FORCE to get people to comply?

michael[/quote]

I'm not putting an opinion in, but I believe the point was that the vast majority of people will NOT choose to plan for their retirement and the state will become responsible for them so this insures both sides.

Those responsible for themselves get whatever they put into a 401K PLUS the SSI.

[Leopard]

Quote by: Mia, Quote by: Leopard, So investing in a high risk scheme instead of a safe one - precisely what freedoms does that give you? Regards, Lava! isn't the determination of 'safe' or 'high risk' a totally subjective one? so why not let people decide for themselves where to invest and how much risk they are willing to take? If social security is so 'good' why use FORCE to get people to comply? michael

I'm not putting an opinion in, but I believe the point was that the vast majority of people will NOT choose to plan for their retirement and the state will become responsible for them so this insures both sides.

Those responsible for themselves get whatever they put into a 401K PLUS the SSI.[/quote]

AH HA! and there is the almighty 'rub' - if people don't do X then when the are about to suffer the natural consequences of their actions... the STATE takes the responsibility...

what a sham?! The problem is that responsibility is taken away from people in the first place!

Look, if people do not value planning for their retirement, so what? Perhaps they have a point, or at least an equally valid view - they would rather live for today then save for some POSSIBLE future which they may or may not be around to enjoy - this valuation is VERY personal. So, how much should each person save? 5%, 10%, 50% of their income? How ridiculous and pompus of people to determine for me what my values and morals are?! Here, let me dictate to you exactly how much sugar to put on your cereal, or force you to eat x quantity of bananas each day... don't people have enough of their own lives to take care of instead of thrying to tell others how to live their lives all the time?

michael

[Mia]

I can't disagree with you, but from the governments point of view it is this or have the homeless population multiply by 100 or pay out of everyone's pocket to care for old people who could not or chose not to plan for retirement.

Plus, what about disability? That's harder to plan for, and again, the state would have to pick up the tab or let people die or be homeless.

[Suburbanite]

You can't take it away from people who have already been in the work force for some time. For them, they paid for that SS for however long and should get it back. If you want to remove SS, it should only begin with people who have been in the workforce for 10 or less years.

[lostkiwi]

Originally posted by Jet, Well, that's utter crap. First, consider the fact that the boomers will start dying en masse in the 20s. Second, the fact you quoted is simply wrong; the most pessimstic view of SS places the bankruptcy date close to where you say it is (in 2037, IIRC), but the expected year, given that 4529056.5 variables that are largely unknown stay the same, is closer to the 2070s. Anyway, there are some things I don't see what the point in them is in SS, which is why I pretty much oppose it: - Why the hell does the government need two different budgets, when having one is more efficient, more flexible, better for the debt (as the period in which SS is in surplus comes before the period in which it'll be in deficit), and based on a more sensible tax? - Why the hell does the government need to distribute social security to people who can live on their own? It's like giving welfare to the middle-class. So, I say, scuttle it, and replace it with need-based aid, like with welfare. If you're 30 and concerned about things now, invest in a savings program, and the government will even ensure it for you in case the bank goes bankrupt.

What makes you think that people born around 1950 will only live 70 years or so? With the state of medical technology at the present time living to be 80, 90 even 100 years old is not out of reach. With medical technology only getting better people are going to be living longer and longer. It's just not realistic to believe that people are just going to keel over and die to keep this system on track. SSC is a pyramid scheme, it will only work when a much greater percentage of people are working than retiring. The retirees will be tipping that scale much sooner that you expect.

Why the hell does the government need to distribute social security to people who can live on their own?

Because it's MY money!! I paid into it. I want it back. Why exactly do you think anyone else has a right to my hard earned money? And who do you think is for SSC who doesn't think they'll be getting something out of it?

And while your at it explain exactly what will motivate a person to invest in a savings account for their retirement if it means that they don't get any of the money they were forced to pay into social security?

[Mia]

For the last sentance....self-preservation. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not worried about SSI but I'm not counting on it either to support me - I don't see how I could live on the amount that will be paid. So I contribute to my 401K.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, that is the advantage to having a job that pays you enough to be able to set aside some to put in your 401k, we do not all have that luxury, or ability. I have been looking hard for a job for the last 7 months, and am still unemployed, and got kicked off of unemployment compensation after 6 months. Bush eliminated ALL extensions, and the job market in my area is worse every month. Under the current economic system, it is not as easy as just applying yourself, and making things happen.

I have paid into these systems for my entire working life now, over 17 years, yet I only am entitled to 6 months unemployment at half my wages, though I have never collected before???? I can't withdraw from social security, and still get a job, unless you find an employer who will allow you to take care of your own deductions.(rare in Ohio) My shoes are getting really worn in, anyone want to go for a walk in these?

[Leopard]

ok Osborn, I do empathize with you and I wish we lived in the same area because I am sure between the two of us we could get you earning a living again.

Your situation points out EXACTLY why the government should TOTALLY and completely OUT of forcing these types of services: retirement, employment 'insurance, healthcare, public education, etc.

How much do you supposed you were taxed for unemployment insurance? Social Security? You 'planned' on having the government be responsible for you during times of unemployment - if the FedGov absolutely didn't do this, then you would have taken it upon yourself to determine how to anticipate for lifes little problems that crop up. Before government came along, people formed lots of groups (of which only a few are left over: Elks Club, Oddfellows, Shriners, etc) which provided for each other during times of need - unemployment, medical expenses, etc. It was a form of self-insurance an worked quite well, in addition, it was more efficient because people were accountable to there friends in the association which cut down drastically on fraud and 'laziness'. These very workable and efficient organizations also promoted families, neighborhoods, and communities - they were voluntary.

Also note how in the past, families took care of their elderly which fostered the strongest organizational unit yet known to man - the family. These are natural inclinations that we as human have, we freely choose to form these associations to deal with problems, when government gets in the way, we disrupt our natural values and morality and responsibilities... none of which benefit that vague and indeterminate group commonly called 'society'.

Your current situation is hard to remedy from afar - I do not know your skills, desires, talents, values. But one thing I am certain of is that there IS work out there - maybe you do not have the skills (currently), or the inclination, or have debts which necessitate a wage greater than you are able to garner in the market. Whatever the case is, I know that you CAN find work out there - because people have not stopped desiring things and services!

My advice (if you care for it at all) is to invest in yourself - increae your skills and talents, possibly go into another profession, or better yet - go into business for yourself in some manner. I actually could provide you with a method of earning money TODAY if you are interested: I own a print shop and have a decent little niche market which we are considering franchising out across the nation but we would need to have people in each city to provide the service/customer contact - let me know if you are interested - there is some sales but mostly its just being available for clients to take orders/answer questions.

michael

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

That is what I am currently doing myself. I found myself at 36 in a trade where I could only expect to make less money every year. The latest recession really made it obvious for me. I was having to compete for jobs that paid 1/2 what I was used to. So I took a good look at what I had, and what I wanted, sold my house and used the money to pay for a good chunk of my college. In two semesters I am going to be back on the market, broke, and in debt since the house did not cover everything. Am I scared? A little, yes, a lot is riding on a career I am only partially equipped for. Do I think I made the wrong choice? Hel no, investing in myself was the best choice, wish I had done it before I was mostly forced to. Starting a career at 38 is going to be strange since the average Electrical engineer is 27 when he starts, but nothing I am going to let stand in my way.

I never did get around to seeing if the government would pay for it, my pride is a valued commodity I have yet to sell.

[Leopard]

Congratulations, Wyrm! Unfortunately we both started late in life because the forced public schooling never bothered to teach us how to properly prepare for the real world. Individuality, responsibility, and integrity are all now 'passe' and in dire need of teaching... I wish you well in your endeavors, if you need any help, let me know as I do have some resources...

michael

[Mia]

The employER pays for unemployment insurance, not the employEE.

[Leopard]

mia! please...

let me explain EXACTLY how it works:

when an EMPLOYER is considering hiring an EMPLOYEE, they take into account all of the related expenses. This includes: direct wages, social security taxes, unemployment insurance, any benefits, in addition to the equipment needed to make the employee more productive (a computer, sewing machine, whatever). If there were no unemployment insurance to pay, then that amount could and would be directly increased into the employees wages...

don't fool yourself, the employee does indeed pay for it in two ways: the pay the actual amount AND they pay because less jobs are available due to its cost.

michael