An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Gorgo]

Okay, yes, I noticed that you are full of it.

Quote by: donkrabbit I also don't understand why, when I (twice) described the evidence in support of the claim as being a priori, your next (and only question) would be for empirical evidence. It seems like quite a contradiction to me. Do you not acknowledge a difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge? A priori evidence is important in the field of economic theory (which is what is being discussed here), because they are not limited to what has been tried in the past. They acknowledge that humans are conceptual beings (not merely perceptual) and that this allows them to prove what the results of a certain policy will be, even if this policy has never before existed in history. Economic theory would be severely limited if it only dealt with a posterior knowledge.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Wrong again. You have already PAID into the system before you collect. Welfare is one way only. SS is a two way street. I'm done.

Are you saying that Social Security is a savings program? If so, I would say that you're wrong. The money that one pays in SS taxes is immedately paid out to current retirees. But I think you agree with that -- after all, it is true. Rather, I think we're arguing about the semantics of the word "welfare". You seem to believe that "welfare" means giving money to people who have not done anything in return. I, on the other hand, believe "welfare", at least of the government variety, means any form of redistribution of wealth. So, under my definition, the vast majority of government programs can be considered "welfare". However, deciding the name for something does not change the nature of the thing itself.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo Where does it come from? Jesus?

No.

Property rights come from the interactions between and among individuals. The government does not encompass the whole of those interactions.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gorgo If you'll recall, the government is supposed to be, "We the People." The idea is, and I know this has been corrupted by criminals like Bush and Clinton, but "We The People," decide what it is that the government is, and why it is.

That's a nice story, but I prefer a different line of reasoning: The rulers are always separate from the ruled.

My remark about property means that it is the people that decide what property is. One of the vehicles they use to decide that and deal with that is the government. People act as if this idea came from Jesus or something. The idea of property did not come from Jesus, it came from people getting together to decide what property is.

I agree that people decide what property is, through their various interactions. "One of" is the operative phrase in the sentence above that contains it. There are many other vehicles besides government. What sets government apart from most of the other vehicles is that it is an institution based on force. Wherever a government exists, it claims to have a monopoly on the legal use of force.

The system of taxation is part of that process. Now, do I think that the people who benefit from this system should be the ones paying most of that bill? Yes. Do I think they are? Not really. That would allow mistakes in deciding who owns what, in the mythical free market, to be repaired by the system. Do I think Social Security should be reformed? Yes, I think all people should be given a minimum of certain things period, not just old people. I think everyone should have access to education, housing, transportation, health care, etc. This world is wealthy enough for that. Since we have Social Security, I think it should be improved, not killed, as Bush and his criminal friends would like.

Why do you think that "all people should be given a minimum of certain things period"?

- Rob

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Autolykos That's a nice story, but I prefer a different line of reasoning: The rulers are always separate from the ruled.

True, but need not be that way.

I agree that people decide what property is, through their various interactions. "One of" is the operative phrase in the sentence above that contains it. There are many other vehicles besides government. What sets government apart from most of the other vehicles is that it is an institution based on force. Wherever a government exists, it claims to have a monopoly on the legal use of force.

Yes. There are many other vehicles. However, right today and right now, the government decides what property is and what theft is. Taxation is not considered theft.

Why do you think that "all people should be given a minimum of certain things period"? - Rob

I explained that. There are no clear lines as to who owns what. Due to errors in the system, in my mind, we need to make sure everyone has a certain minimum. What that minimum is depends on what is available.

[Starboy]

Hello everyone. I have quickly skimmed this thread so I may have missed some details but the basic arguments appear to be:

For SS) It is needed for people that for whatever reason find themselves unprepared for retirement.

Against SS) It is a welfare program that encourages people to plan poorly and unfairly taxes those who make money.

I would like to offer a third possibility, Social Security as an insurance program.

Change the program completely. Make it more like an insurance program but insurance for people that are forced to retire. If you can work but you have not saved for a planned retirement then you work till you drop or are too ill to work. Only then would you get your retirement benefits. This insurance would be required for everyone that worked and would be collected out of payroll. The insurance companies would be required to provide a basic policy as set forth by the government regulators but they could also offer other plans with greater benefits and greater cost. Like all other insurance it would not be run by the government but regulated by the government. The government could continue to put in place tax instruments to encourage people to save for a planned retirement but if they were forced to retire then the insurance would kick in. If you could work when you were 90 but you didn't plan for your retirement then you would be working till you were 90. The younger generation might get pissed because there would be all these old farts holding down the upper level jobs for thirty or forty years. But hey, at least the government would not be forcing them to support a welfare program.

Starboy

[bishop]

that's what senator graham seems to be pushing to some degree. what he's talking about hints at ending social security's role as an entitlement and establishing some sort of application process whereby those who don't need it would have diminished benefits - leaving money available to benefit those who truly do need it.

i forget the statistic off-hand, but something like 50-60% of adults have little or no savings. many of these people also have high levels of debt. for them, social security is the only thing they can count on - or could count on if bush gets it his way. to simply say "fuck 'em, it's their fault for not saving" is not an argument that respects fellow americans or civilized society imo.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Bishop, always so wrong. Bush isn't saying Fuck em to anyone. Nice twisting the facts, creating lies, and getting off and finding a new way to hate Bush.

Yay for you.

Back here, on planet earth, no one is going ot be left out cold by Bush's proposals.

[Gorgo]

From News of the Weird.

'In a January CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, in answer to the question whether President Bush is a "uniter" or a "divider," exactly 49 percent of Americans said he was a uniter, and exactly 49 percent said he was a divider. [St. Petersburg Times-AP, 1-17-05] [CNN, 1-19-05] '

[bishop]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Bishop, always so wrong. Bush isn't saying Fuck em to anyone. Nice twisting the facts, creating lies, and getting off and finding a new way to hate Bush. Yay for you. Back here, on planet earth, no one is going ot be left out cold by Bush's proposals.

is this based on any understanding of what bush is proposing? oh yeah, he hasn't actually come out of the closet yet with his own proposal. so basically, you're just trusting that bush will be true to his word... he's made A LOT of promises in the past that he hasn't kept. and he's made quite a lot of lies - or distortions of the truth. kind of like how he claimed his medicare program continuously costs way more than what he said it would cost - in addition to increasing drug costs which essentially negate the money given with bush's drug benefit package.. or how about promises that iraqi reconstruction would be funded by iraqi oil sales, in a country where the people would be greeting us with flowers and smiles? or how he's a uniter, or that he's opposed to nation building, or that he doesn't favor amnesty for illegal immigrants....?

i'm sure that you believe everything that comes out of bush's mouth. afraid to say that you're a fool for that.


not only should seniors not trust him with social security, but young people shouldn't either - especially since he aims to dump $2 trillion in additional debt right on their backs.

[Starboy]

Quote by: bishop that's what senator graham seems to be pushing to some degree. what he's talking about hints at ending social security's role as an entitlement and establishing some sort of application process whereby those who don't need it would have diminished benefits - leaving money available to benefit those who truly do need it.

I would like to see something more like insurance. If you had an unplanned retirement then the policy would kick in. Otherwise it would be like owning fire insurance but never having a fire.

i forget the statistic off-hand, but something like 50-60% of adults have little or no savings. many of these people also have high levels of debt. for them, social security is the only thing they can count on...

If these statistics are correct then I would expect the insurance companies to require government to be a co-insurer. Just as they do with hurricane, quake or flood insurance.

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos Are you saying that Social Security is a savings program? If so, I would say that you're wrong. The money that one pays in SS taxes is immedately paid out to current retirees. But I think you agree with that -- after all, it is true. Rather, I think we're arguing about the semantics of the word "welfare". You seem to believe that "welfare" means giving money to people who have not done anything in return. I, on the other hand, believe "welfare", at least of the government variety, means any form of redistribution of wealth. So, under my definition, the vast majority of government programs can be considered "welfare". However, deciding the name for something does not change the nature of the thing itself. - Rob

Under your definition, I would agree with you. It is not a savings account any more than it is welfare. I have said this many times. However, I believe the generally accepted definition of welfare is not the same as yours and for the sake of argument we should just go with what is the most agreed-on definition. And therin lies the basis of our disagreement. I have problems with a lot of government giveaways and usage of tax money, but not Social Security. I prefer to suspend my aversion to paying taxes for a few things I consider worthwhile.

The other guy said being in need is their own fault. I say it usually isn't and in THIS country, we owe a debt to our seniors. If a few undeserving ones slip through the cracks, that's life. I will never support abolition. As I mentioned earlier, if we are not of SS age, we are ALL parasites on the work done before by those that came before and we should realize that before we try and pull the rug our from under the previous generation. My belief in that debt cannot be shaken by any contrary argument and I will fight any attempt to screw the seniors with any and all available means.

I just believe in taking care of our own, and I believe we can tighten our belts in other ways.

[bishop]

Quote by: starboy I would like to see something more like insurance. If you had an unplanned retirement then the policy would kick in. Otherwise it would be like owning fire insurance but never having a fire.

i'm in favor of something different.. i believe everyone must have some sort of 401k account of some sort.. i.e. a specialized retirement account. i don't particularly care if it's privately or publicly managed, although i would prefer to see it privately managed (as all of our banks are). in exchange, the government should offer something similar to FDIC which insures your deposits in banks against catastrophic loss. that way, we can ensure that people will adequately save for their retirements, without fear of losing everything in an enron type scandal, or a major market crash. for those who are very poor, and never made enough during their lives to save for retirement, i believe the current system should exist to serve their needs. (it's completely immoral to punish elderly poor, and no "taxes = stealing" argument can change that in my opinion.)


as far as those statistics are concerned, here's a source (amongst many):

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in533047.shtml

(AP) At a time when Americans are living longer, more than half the paid workers ages 25 to 64 don't own retirement savings accounts of any kind. About a third work for employers who don't offer retirement benefits, a congressional study said Friday. Slightly over half those workers with access to employer-sponsored plans participated in 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service analysis of Census Bureau data. The study looked at 113 million workers ages 25 to 64 who earned money on the job, including full-time, part-time, private, public and self-employed.

[Scribbler1]

My biggest problem with all this is not that there are problems with the system but HOW do we "fix" it and will that fix be reversible if it turns out it is ineffective? If I understand it correctly, Bush's "solution" would be to allow workers the ability to take what would be the SS portion of their taxes and invest it. If so, it sounds half-assed at best. If half the people opt for the private account that leaves the OTHER half to fund SS. And if everyone opts in, since they would be paying for the preceding generation that generation is screwed.
I don't know the answer, but I can never trust a lame-duck president who has shown zero ability to handle this country's economy any more than I can believe any of his stooges on the web and in the media.

And as for all those people who don't save anything anyway, why not a MANDATORY private account? You get it all back when you retire but you have to pay into it. The Libertarians will bitch but it will head off the problem of having a few million retired and broke seniors.

[Starboy]

Quote by: bishop ... the government should offer something similar to FDIC which insures your deposits in banks against catastrophic loss. that way, we can ensure that people will adequately save for their retirements, without fear of losing everything in an enron type scandal, or a major market crash. for those who are very poor, and never made enough during their lives to save for retirement, i believe the current system should exist to serve their needs. (it's completely immoral to punish elderly poor, and no "taxes = stealing" argument can change that in my opinion.)

I agree that a well run society can't tolerate too high a percentage of marginalized people even if they are old. That if those statistics are any indication of what is going on then we will need to address it. What you advocate sounds like insurance to me.

Here is a question for you. If a person can still work should they be made to retire? There is the issue of making room for all those young’ins to have a shot at the better jobs. Unless there is some huge technological shift akin to the introduction of the computer, the fifty something’s have plenty of skills.

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Starboy Here is a question for you. If a person can still work should they be made to retire? There is the issue of making room for all those young’ins to have a shot at the better jobs. Unless there is some huge technological shift akin to the introduction of the computer, the fifty something’s have plenty of skills. Starboy

Who forces them to retire? If you mean the government I don't believe they have anything to do with retirement other than when you are elegible for SS. If you mean by their employers then that is the employers' business. I believe mandatory retirement is mostly practiced by large corporations and not so much (if at all) bt smaller businesses.

[bishop]

Here is a question for you. If a person can still work should they be made to retire? There is the issue of making room for all those young’ins to have a shot at the better jobs. Unless there is some huge technological shift akin to the introduction of the computer, the fifty something’s have plenty of skills.

no, although companies regularly retire their staff by firing them (typically with retirement packages of course). from the perspective of social security, it's good that these people are putting off retirement, because that means that they'll continue to pay payroll taxes into the system.

If I understand it correctly, Bush's "solution" would be to allow workers the ability to take what would be the SS portion of their taxes and invest it. If so, it sounds half-assed at best. If half the people opt for the private account that leaves the OTHER half to fund SS.

yeah.. that's what he's proposing.. the poor will be completely left out to dry.

just some basic ideas/principles about what i think should be done.

1. everybody must have a retirement account (the details about whether it's publicly/privately managed are unimportant to me).
2. everybody's retirement assets will be protected by insurance similar to the fdic.
3. spending cuts, reforms, and a portion of income tax will be used to fund the old version of social security in a collective trust fund.
4. at the age of retirement, if an individual doesn't have sufficient assets to retire on, he/she will be given retirement benefits disbursed out of the old system's trust fund.

5. just as a perc and an incentive, the government should match your deposits by a certain percentage. (currently in corporate 401k plans, the employer will match your contributions up to 4-6%.)

[bishop]

as an aside, i think my #4 item will give society a solid reason to eliminate poverty in america - because more poverty = more people receiving benefits from the old system. a bit of social engineering, but whatever...

[Starboy]

Yes but what is the age of retirement? If people have insufficient funds to retire and they can work should they get a retirement benefit?

Starboy

[Scribbler1]

I think it's now 68 years of age, but I'm not sure if that has been enacted yet. If not, it WILL be.

If people have insufficient funds to retire and they can work should they get a retirement benefit?

I don't think there is a set answer to that. Despite the inplication that SS is a windfall for the unworthy, many people MUST work as well as collect SS to make ends meet. I'm not sure what it is for everyone, but I don't think you're going to run out and buy a new Lexus with your first SS check.