An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Starboy]

Quote by: Scribbler1 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.

But if a person is working and making ends meet and they do not have enough money to retire should they be allowed to retire just because they want to stop working? Why would someone want to retire and collect SS if they would then have to continue working?

Starboy

[donkrabbit]

Quote by: Gorgo Okay, yes, I noticed that you are full of it.

Way to cop out of the discussion.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Starboy But if a person is working and making ends meet and they do not have enough money to retire should they be allowed to retire just because they want to stop working? Why would someone want to retire and collect SS if they would then have to continue working? Starboy

I don't understand. If a person is getting by but can't afford to retire then they probably won't stop working. They CAN retire and collect SS but if that's not enough they have a problem. If they retired and then continued to work while collecting SS then what is the point? I don't see that particular sceario playing out.
SS was always meant as a supplement and not a sole source of income. It's also a balancing act between income and SS benefits. If you make TOO much then your benefits are reduced. This is why a lot of seniors continue to work, but in part time jobs so as not to exceed the limit.
As for being allowed to retire in the first place, I think that should be examined on a case by case basis if there is Social Security involved. However, I don't think anyone actually retires just to make less money on SS benefits.

[fushigi]

Quote by: donkrabbit My argument was not that Social Security should be abolished and private charity be emphasized because private charity does a better job at aiding the needy. My argument is (and has always been) that Social Security should be abolished because it violates property rights.

What about income and sales taxes? Are those violations of property rights too?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Any tax could be construed as such, the real question isn't how the money is procured, but what it is used for.

[Gorgo]

People generally say things in discussions. If you wish to start saying something, maybe someone will follow.

Quote by: donkrabbit Way to cop out of the discussion.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Scribbler1 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.

Umm, no it won't. One of the main problems with Social Security is because nothing is done with the money you pay in, it just sits there being deflated. On average, a person withdraws the equivalent of their lifetime of payments into the system in only two years of collecting checks. In other words, the sum total of your lifetime payroll deductions to Social Security will only support you for two years or less.

[Scribbler1]

I'm not so sure about that 2 year figure, but I should say it will head off the problem at least better than trashing it entirely. I still support fixing it rather than killing it or leaving it as is. Times change and SS should change as well.
The idea of something along the lines of those private interest bearing accounts that are backed by the government, FDIC-style, make a lot of sense.

[tivodan1116]

I still don't see why I should be forced to pay for someone else's mistakes. If people are so hellbent on saving old people, drop Social Security. The people that are interested in helping people will have extra income that they can donate to more efficient and less bureaucratic private/parochial charities which will certainly be set up in Social Security's absence, and people like me can take care of our own.

What pains me the most are people thinking that the government has a better idea of what to do with my money then I do.

A quick solution I propose that would fix many of our tax problems simply by forcing people to really think about how much they want government to do for us: End payroll witholding. Make people write one big check at the end of the year for all of the bullshit the government "needs" money for. Maybe when people are writing $10,000 checks instead of magically losing money they never see, they'll think about where it's going.....

[Scribbler1]

You seem to be operating under the misconception the "people"will pony up ANYTHING if left to their own devices. You know damn well a lot of people will not give a dime to help out those a bit less fortunate than we are. The reason that you are in the minority complaining about having money "stolen"from you is that more people have no problem with Social Security taxes being taken out. They pay them and think how lucky they are not to NEED it. But they ARE aware of the fact that some DO need it.
I see it as society as a whole doing for those in need and by withholding taxes they are protecting these needy people from YOU. The USA does not consist of 250 Million individual countries. It is a society, and in a society you have to actually PAY something once in a while.
I believe it needs to be fixed and I believe it can be. But it's going to cost you and I either way.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 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.

Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the "generally accepted definition of welfare"?

The ultimate problem with taxes is the same as the problem with majority rule. There may be (and probably always is) someone somewhere who does not want his tax money spent the same way that the majority does. If you don't mind paying taxes for Social Security, that's fine. Outside of government, you can "tax" yourself. There are two nice things about this: 1) it's voluntary, and 2) no one else has to be forced to contribute. But that's not what this is really all about. Instead, it's about people applying the categorical imperative to government -- i.e. forcing other people to have the same preferences as they do.

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'm sorry, but how do "we" owe a debt to "our" seniors?

By that logic, everyone everywhere is a parasite on the work done by all those that came before. The parasitism does not end when one retires. It only ends when one dies. That said, I don't see how anyone is trying to "pull the rug [out] from under the previous generation".

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. However, just because you yourself believe something does not mean that the rest of us should be forced to in practice.

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

I also believe in taking care of "our own". Just not through the government.

- Rob

[bishop]

by "our own" do you mean your own family, or people in general?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos Out of curiosity, what do you consider to be the "generally accepted definition of welfare"?

For the sake of this point, it is society extending assistance to anyone inn that society in need. I'm not getting into definitions of "society" and "need" and the like.

The ultimate problem with taxes is the same as the problem with majority rule. There may be (and probably always is) someone somewhere who does not want his tax money spent the same way that the majority does. If you don't mind paying taxes for Social Security, that's fine. Outside of government, you can "tax" yourself. There are two nice things about this: 1) it's voluntary, and 2) no one else has to be forced to contribute.

And it doesn't work. If it did, SS would never have existed in the first place. It seesm everyone on your side of the argument is building the argument on the same faulty foundation. Charities are not exactly flush right now, yet you falsely maintain charities, funded with those mythical private donations will take care of the SS recipients we have now. The other false argument is the blanket accusation that it is "their own fault".
If you want to just be honest and say "I just don't want to pay for this" and leave it at that, you can get no argument from me. It's your business.

But that's not what this is really all about. Instead, it's about people applying the categorical imperative to government -- i.e. forcing other people to have the same preferences as they do.

Forcing SOME people but not MOST people. That's how society works. You can't get everything your own way. I'll disagree with something you support and you can use the same argument on me. Society in general wants it otherwise.

I'm sorry, but how do "we" owe a debt to "our" seniors?

If you like the country you were born into, then you have to thank them. You and I did nothing to deserve this environment except be born into it. If you can't see that there is no point debating this with you. Don't pay your taxes, keep your handful of extra money and go buy an island because if you don't contribute you don't GET, period.

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. However, just because you yourself believe something does not mean that the rest of us should be forced to in practice.

I believe in helping fellow Americans who are in need, and the majority of American feel as I do. You don't agree, fine. You are in a small minority. Deal with it.

I also believe in taking care of "our own". Just not through the government. - Rob

And I'd like to see how we can do that using any of the plans as they are presented at this time. Unless you have mentioned an alternative to SS all I hear is that you don't want to pay for it.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 For the sake of this point, it is society extending assistance to anyone inn that society in need. I'm not getting into definitions of "society" and "need" and the like.

Yet it's important to "get into" those definitions, as I think yours and mine are rather disparate from each other.

And it doesn't work. If it did, SS would never have existed in the first place.

Explain what you mean by "work", please.

It seesm everyone on your side of the argument is building the argument on the same faulty foundation.

My "side"? I wasn't aware that I was necessarily on anyone's side. I form my own conclusions; if they happen to be more or less in line with others', so be it.

Charities are not exactly flush right now, yet you falsely maintain charities, funded with those mythical private donations will take care of the SS recipients we have now.

Why are charities "not exactly flush right now"? Do you know? I honestly do not, but I will look into it.

Are you willing to admit the *possibility* that, if taxes were lower, charitable donations would be higher?

The other false argument is the blanket accusation that it is "their own fault".

I never said anything about fault. However, since you bring it up, one cannot blame anyone but himself if he chooses not to save anything for retirement, under the belief that Social Security will "take care" of him.

If you want to just be honest and say "I just don't want to pay for this" and leave it at that, you can get no argument from me. It's your business.

I've been honest in this discussion so far, and I will be honest now. I do not want to pay for Social Security, both in terms of the taxes taken out of my paychecks and in terms of the economic damage that the program has wrought and continues to wreak.

Forcing SOME people but not MOST people. That's how society works.

That's how *government* works. Please keep the two distinct.

You can't get everything your own way. I'll disagree with something you support and you can use the same argument on me. Society in general wants it otherwise.

It's far easier to support or refrain from supporting something outside of government. With government, we all end up implicitly supporting everything the government does, because of taxes.

I fail to see how government embodies society. Therefore, I find it incorrect to say "society in general wants" anything.

If you like the country you were born into, then you have to thank them.

Since when? No one *has* to do anything.

You and I did nothing to deserve this environment except be born into it. If you can't see that there is no point debating this with you. Don't pay your taxes, keep your handful of extra money and go buy an island because if you don't contribute you don't GET, period.

You seem to be getting angry here. I fail to see why. However, since you bring it up, I don't believe that anyone deserves anything, in the sense that if I say I deserve something and you say I don't, neither of us can prove the other right *or* wrong. There is nothing to stop someone from *not* feeling obligated to those who came before him, for better or worse. It seems that you wish to force everyone to "thank" their elders. While such thanking is commendable morally, I feel that its moral goodness is stripped away when people are forced to follow it. Basically, my point is this: whenever one forces someone else to follow a certain set of morals, they cease to be morals.

I believe in helping fellow Americans who are in need, and the majority of American feel as I do. You don't agree, fine. You are in a small minority. Deal with it.

Number One: I also believe in helping fellow Americans (and other people) who are in need. I've already said this.

Number Two: I do not, however, believe in government welfare programs, as I have concluded, based on evidence, that such programs harm more than they help.

Number Three: This is how I "deal with it".

And I'd like to see how we can do that using any of the plans as they are presented at this time. Unless you have mentioned an alternative to SS all I hear is that you don't want to pay for it.

Here is my alternative to Social Security: let people do with their money as they wish. Laissez faire.

- Rob

[tivodan1116]

Scribbler et al with the same argument,

You are using circular logic:
On the one hand, you say that people will not donate to charities to help old people of their own free will.
On the other hand, you say that most people WANT (and are glad) to pay into Social Security to help the old.
If most people are glad to pay into Social Security and help others, will these same people not donate that money to private charity when it is no longer being forcibly removed from their check? Either they will, and that would prove my suggestion of private charity is a good one, or they won't, which means that people are opposed donating their money to help others, which proves that I am right that Social Security is an unpopular program that only exists because the government steals money from the citizens under threat of force.

[tivodan1116]

An interesting example of charity at work:

My church of about 100 members raised, in one week, over $14,000 for tsunami relief to send our pastor on a mission trip to Sri Lanka (where he is from) and, after the airfare is paid for, to donate the rest to Sri Lankan churches that were leveled by the tsunami.

The average annual benefit for Social Security was $10,140 per year for one person, or $16,920 per year for a married couple (2001 figures from the SSA). That means in one week of charitable giving, less then 100 people (certainly not every member gave) raised enough money to replace quite a bit more than an entire years' worth of benefits. Keep in mind that we were able to do this while still being forced to pay over 50% of our income in local, state, and federal taxes. If all of our disposable income was doubled immediately, imagine how much could be done.

I'm not trying to pat myself or my church on the back, I'm just pointing out that through voluntary donations, small charities work extremely well at targeting money to where it is needed. If Social Security ended tomorrow, I have no doubt in my mind that our congregation's senior citizens would be 100% taken care of. THAT is the definition of society.

While we're on definitions, let me pull up my Westlaw for a minute....
McKinney's Penal Law, State of New York.
s160.00 Robbery, defined

Robbery is forcible stealing. A person forcibly steals property and commits robbery when, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of:


1. Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or


2. Compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.

Other then the falsehood of a mandate created by our "two supposedly different but actually identical party" system, explain to me how payroll deductions are any different than robbery.

[Gorgo]

You just showed what a money-waster charities are. Thousands upon thousands of people are dying, and you give your money to some guy to take a trip to Sri Lanka so they can rebuild churches?

[Gorgo]

Robbery is what society says that it is. Taxation is not robbery. Taxation is the means to fund the state.

[fushigi]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Other then the falsehood of a mandate created by our "two supposedly different but actually identical party" system, explain to me how payroll deductions are any different than robbery.

Somebody needs to reread his social contract theory.

Start with Hobbes.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Scribbler et al with the same argument, You are using circular logic: On the one hand, you say that people will not donate to charities to help old people of their own free will.

Are you saying these people will take the money they would normally pay in SS withholding and DONATE it? Leaving them with a net gain of $0?

On the other hand, you say that most people WANT (and are glad) to pay into Social Security to help the old.

I believe I said most people have no problem with it. They don't necessarily WANT to but they realize the need for it.

If most people are glad to pay into Social Security and help others, will these same people not donate that money to private charity when it is no longer being forcibly removed from their check?

They are not "glad" and many will NOT donate which is the whole reason for SS in the first place. You continually drag out these mysterious "charities" to support your bogus argument. The charities you keep mentioning do NOT exist and the charities that DO exist are not equipped to handle replacing Social Security. Unless some viable and real (not fantasy "what if's") alternative to SS comes along the American people WANT it!
Here's the argument in a nutshell. Nobody likes taxes and nobody is thrilled about SS withholding. But the American people recognize the need for something like this and have agreed to do it. Unlike you, we DO feel a debt to those who came before and we're not going to stick it to them over some myopic libertarian ideal.
You feel you owe nothing to those who built what you were born into and you don't want to pay for anything.
That is the difference. You can believe what you want but the majority of Americans do not agree with you. Once again, deal with it.