An alternative approach to solving the Social Security mess

[Scribbler1]

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

Of course I can agree there is a "possibility" that this MIGHT happen, but I'm not betting an entire generation's benefits on it. This is your whole "charity" argument, the "possibility" that voluntary donations will replace SS. Your whole argument is based on what doesn't exist. Ergo, your argument is false.
Again. if you don't want to pay the tax, fine. That is your business. But don't try to rationalize your position by basing it on something that does NOT exist.

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.

Another blatant lie. Show me where anyone "chooses" not to save because they believe SS will take care of them?

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.

FINALLY you are being honest. Thank you very much.

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

Government is supposed to reflect the wishes of the majority. Of course, sometimes it fails miserably but our government was designed to represent the majority view. SS was proposed and accepted by the majority.

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

Then why do we have elections? Why not go back to having a King? Yeah, a monarch or a dictator would probably not go for Social Security.

You seem to be getting angry here. I fail to see why.

Because I'm NOT getting angry, that's why you fail. I assume you mean my use of caps. This is for emphasis as I don't think italics do the job on a computer screen. (go ahead and read one of the lines I've posted and yell out every capitalized word. It will sound stupid I can assure you) Anger is more a whole string of capitalized words.

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.

This is because the morals of too many are sorely lacking and they would not voluntarily break from the "I got mine" mindset to help anyone. Granted, it IS enforcing morality in a sense, but only because these people would suffer at the hands of the amoral.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Of course I can agree there is a "possibility" that this MIGHT happen, but I'm not betting an entire generation's benefits on it. This is your whole "charity" argument, the "possibility" that voluntary donations will replace SS. Your whole argument is based on what doesn't exist. Ergo, your argument is false.

Private donations don't exist today?

I don't make assumptions about what would happen if things were otherwise. That means I'm not using the "'charity' argument" as an argument. The entire point is that there are other ways to take care of people besides the government stealing money from others (i.e. those who have it).

Again. if you don't want to pay the tax, fine. That is your business. But don't try to rationalize your position by basing it on something that does NOT exist.

There is no rationalizing here.

Another blatant lie. Show me where anyone "chooses" not to save because they believe SS will take care of them?

Are there no elderly people who rely solely upon Social Security?

FINALLY you are being honest. Thank you very much.

I've been honest this entire time. Why do you insist that I haven't been?

Government is supposed to reflect the wishes of the majority. Of course, sometimes it fails miserably but our government was designed to represent the majority view. SS was proposed and accepted by the majority.

The rulers are always separate from the ruled. Besides, just because a majority wants something does not mean it should be forced on those who do not.

Then why do we have elections? Why not go back to having a King? Yeah, a monarch or a dictator would probably not go for Social Security.

We have elections to appoint our "representatives", those who supposedly "serve" us in government. That has nothing to do with my statement that "government does not embody society", however. If it did, everything would be under government control -- we would be living in a totalitarian state.

By the way, the first modern social security program was enacted by the German Empire in the late 1800s. They were definitely not a democracy.

Because I'm NOT getting angry, that's why you fail.

I stand corrected, then. But "fail" at what?

I assume you mean my use of caps. This is for emphasis as I don't think italics do the job on a computer screen. (go ahead and read one of the lines I've posted and yell out every capitalized word. It will sound stupid I can assure you) Anger is more a whole string of capitalized words.

No problem.

This is because the morals of too many are sorely lacking and they would not voluntarily break from the "I got mine" mindset to help anyone. Granted, it IS enforcing morality in a sense, but only because these people would suffer at the hands of the amoral.

If they would not voluntarily break from that mindset, that's their choice. Sad, but true.

- Rob

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Scribbler1 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? I believe I said most people have no problem with it. They don't necessarily WANT to but they realize the need for it.

They would no longer realize the need if it stopped being pulled from them by force? Sounds like there is not really a need then.

Quote by: Scribbler1 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!

I see. So no new charities have ever been created in the history of the United States? Your point there borders on the ridiculous. How many "Tsunami Relief" charities were there before December 26th, 2004? That's the way charities work... They arise out of a need. But thank you for making another point of my argument for me.... Charities exist where there is need and do not exist where there is no need. Government handouts, on the other hand, start when there is a perceived need and continue forever until they become a crutch to all. The American people "want" social security because they have not been presented with a viable alternative because our two major political parties are merely interested in maintaining power as opposed to improving the nation.

Quote by: Scribbler1 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.

Oh, I see.... I guess our founding fathers were myopic then, because philosophically they were libertarians and fiercely independant. They would see the idea of a government handout as preposterous. Read some of their writings sometime.

Quote by: Scribbler1 That is the difference. You can believe what you want but the majority of Americans do not agree with you.

The majority of Americans think that Al-Queda and Iraq are linked, and that George W. Bush is a good president. I submit that the majority of Americans are uneducated dolts. Do you really want to use their beliefs as the foundation for your argument? But I guess government should do whatever the majority wants, right? Just like the majority in 1960 were against civil rights for minorities and women, and the majority in 1820 thought slavery was ok??? Yeah... the majority. I forgot how right they always are.

Quote by: Scribbler1 Once again, deal with it

Hmm... agree with the majority, or too bad... where have I heard this before?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Autolykos Private donations don't exist today?

Not to replace SS withholding, because such a charity does not exist. You know all this yet you are trying to create something that isn't there. I don't have the time to clarify all of the out of context and misleading references to anything I said.
I'll call this a draw on this subject. Frankly, I think we've taken this about as far as it goes.

I just have to respond to one more thing. I asked a specific question " Another blatant lie. Show me where anyone "chooses" not to save because they believe SS will take care of them?" and you responded with, NOT an answer but an unrelated and irrelevant question.

Are there no elderly people who rely solely upon Social Security?

You can call that debate if you wish, but it is not.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Not to replace SS withholding, because such a charity does not exist. You know all this yet you are trying to create something that isn't there.

Where am I trying to create something that isn't there? As far as I know, I wasn't trying to create anything.

I don't have the time to clarify all of the out of context and misleading references to anything I said.

By all means, please point these out. I did not mean to misunderstand you. However, to be fair, I feel that you have also misunderstood me. For example, somehow you took my question about the existence of private donations to mean that I was arguing that a private form of Social Security would necessarily rise up in place of SS itself. I said no such thing. As I said before, my entire point was that there are other ways to take care of people aside from the government doing it. Do you understand that?

I'll call this a draw on this subject. Frankly, I think we've taken this about as far as it goes. I just have to respond to one more thing. I asked a specific question " Another blatant lie. Show me where anyone "chooses" not to save because they believe SS will take care of them?" and you responded with, NOT an answer but an unrelated and irrelevant question.

The answer is in the question. From what I understand, there are many elderly in America whose sole source of income is the money they receive from Social Security. In other words, they had declined to save on their own or their savings had somehow already been used up by now. In the former case, that sounds like a choice of theirs to me.

You can call that debate if you wish, but it is not.

How not?

- Rob

[bishop]

The answer is in the question. From what I understand, there are many elderly in America whose sole source of income is the money they receive from Social Security. In other words, they had declined to save on their own or their savings had somehow already been used up by now.

huh??? having social security as their sole source of income doesn't mean that they're penniless - it just means that s.s. is their only source of INCOME. living off of your savings doesn't constitute income, but nearly all the retirees i know of have savings. income and savings are completely different.

other sourses of income for retirees are usually pensions, bond coupon payments and capital gains (if they haven't already cashed out of the market).

[Autolykos]

Quote by: bishop huh??? having social security as their sole source of income doesn't mean that they're penniless - it just means that s.s. is their only source of INCOME. living off of your savings doesn't constitute income, but nearly all the retirees i know of have savings. income and savings are completely different. other sourses of income for retirees are usually pensions, bond coupon payments and capital gains (if they haven't already cashed out of the market).

Whoops! I had honestly forgotten about the fact that savings is not income. How stupid of me. So, of course, people can receive no income and live entirely off of their savings.

The possibility remains, however, that some elderly people do not have savings and thus rely solely upon their Social Security income. I have no idea how many or few such people are, so I need to look into it.

Thanks for pointing out my error. I'm sorry to have made it.

- Rob

[bishop]

i'm not sure if you'll find a lot of people who have no savings and live solely off of social security. one of my grandfather's is close... like many in his generation, he didn't graduate high school.. he fought in ww2 as a paratrooper, then worked building rail roads thanks to roosevelt's programs. then he worked in a factory as a brick maker for years. he never made much money at all. right now, he has some meager savings, and gets his income from his pension and social security. without s.s. he'd be destitute - and he's already considerably poor (but one of the most generous people i've ever known).

that's just my personal example, but i'm certain that there are many more like him in this country. personally, i feel that these people deserve to have a system like social security so that they can live out their retirement with some dignity. i'm entirely willing to be taxed to support that. however, i am not willing to be taxed to provide subsidies, foreign welfare to great countries like egypt, columbia and israel, etc...

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Autolykos 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?

They might be, but I wouldn't want to lose a bet on it and be indirectly responsible for the senior poverty rate going back to the level which inspired Social Security in the first place.
Maybe we could get some idea of charity levels after the end of SS by examining a period of time before the depression and New Deal. Probably the depression would not be the best place to measure charity donation levels. Hmmm.

Eliminating payroll taxes for people barely making it, living on credit, and much of the middle class would probably not result in a great deal of excess disposable income that would be flowing into local charities, savings accounts or truly personal retirement accounts. Like a gas expanding to fill its container, spending would likely tend to expand to consume the small amount of additional cash on hand**. If the money is being spent rather than being factored out completely, the hand-to-mouth set will find themselves in a world of hurt much like those before the New Deal. Who knows, the extra income might also be automatically factored into demand curves across the economy (like water seeking its own level) nudging up prices ("whatever the market will bear" or whatever) adding to the wonderful vanishing act that money always seems to perform.

But this is all just cautionary conjecture. I think we risk ripping off our collective descendants if we bugger Social Security. Those who don't believe they owe anything to our collective ancestors probably have similar thoughts about those down the pike. Hell, they'd certainly reciprocate the sentiment ("take care of your self old codger") if we decide to deal them out.

** Fun with R23: A one year Experiment: Send me $80 a month and I'll let you know if I have any left at the end of each month. I'm a hand to mouther so this will be very useful, at least to me...!

[Richard 23]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Then why do we have elections? Why not go back to having a King? Yeah, a monarch or a dictator would probably not go for Social Security.

Why not indeed....