Those two items were both started during FDR's terms. They started out as noble ways to take care of orphans and widows. Over the years, they morphed into our nation's retirement plan. I do think they are a form of welfare and wish they were curtailed. The problem though, is that any politician that brings up any talks of changing it, gets immediately voted out of office. Old people vote. But there is a reason why they are called "entitlements ".
No, I am not old enough to get such benefits. And I am OK if both were eliminated today. Many would not be though because the government has done a terrible thing and told the country it would take care of them. So no one has planned to take care of themselves.
Yes, Icey. I view it as a tax. Lower my taxes and get rid of the welfare system. But like I said, it won't happen. People like me just have to keep taking care of everyone else like you.
You don't pay into it and collect your money later. What I'm paying into SS now is going to pay the people who paid into it years ago. Hence why I call it a pozi scheme. People in the private sector who run programs that way are thrown in prison (rightfully so). It's not sustainable and at some point it's really going to bite some retirees in the ass because they were told they could count on it.
I'd gladly forfeit my future benefits if I could take any future earnings that would go in it and instead invest them in my own retirement account where politicians couldn't just steal it when there is a short fall in the budget.
Technically, you are correct codemonkey. But I view all taxes that way. I pay but get very little benefit. When it was started, there were 100 people paying in for every one that was taking out. Now, there is about 3 paying for every one taking out. If people start living until they are 100+, then the system is in trouble.
My feeling toward the government is more skepticism than hate. I like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but most politicians are slimy bastards who only care about themselves. However, I am collecting social security and I am on Medicare (and I'm also covered by my retirement package of life-long vision, dental and prescription drugs). When I was in my 20's, many co-workers said SS was a Ponzi scheme, but I as well as most of them are now receiving our benefits. I also have pension, 401-K, savings, and investments to provide for my golden years. My monthly Social Security check goes into strippers' thongs.
@jackslash Yeah if SS is still going when I retire, I'll collect it too. Not because I agree with it but because that is the system we currently live under. I'll view it as the government making payments against the money I've loaned it for all these years.
Reagan is famous for proclaiming that Medicare was socialism and that it would ruin American capitalism. The reality is that pre-Medicare only about 55% of Americans over 65 had health insurance that protected them from financial ruin. And insurance companies could cancel their policies if there was financial incentive. Call it socialism if you want -- Medicare is a blessing for the elderly and most of the geezers on TUSCL.
I think of social security as an investment just like any other retirement plan is. I've seen my dad become more and more stressed out from his job as he has gotten older. Its gotten to the point where he absolutely hates going to work now and shows up late and leaves early whenever he can and is basically just counting the days until he can retire. Most people get really worn out from working their entire lives at some point and social security allows them to put in the work when they are young and healthy so they don't have to work anymore when they are old.
@Sancho
Seriously you don't want to live past the age of 65? Most people consider that to be a pretty young age to die. I have a feeling you won't be so flippant about dying when you are 65.
SS is only a decent investment if you live a really really long time. If you put the money into decent index funds for 40+ years instead of depositing it into the federal coffers to be spent immediately, you would do much better. Also with a real investment account, you can pass what's left on to whomever you want when you die. SS just goes away. It's really a terrible way to "invest" for retirement.
^^^But many people would never save and invest as you suggest. They would just be very poor in their old age. The fact that some people don't live long enough to collect social security or don't live long enough to get back what they put in means that the SS payments for those who do receive payments can be higher. SS is not a conventional investment. It is a social program that uses taxes to help old people. It is very popular with old people and so it is unlikely to go away.
I'd rather keep my money that goes into Social Security and invest it myself..........and using SS as an example is probably not your best defense for Socialism.
Social security is an insurance program. To look at it any other way is mislabeling it, such as an “investment” or “socialism” or whatever others have categorized it.
It insures against some things that come along with old age; increased medical expenses, poverty due to loss of income. Medicare helps with certain medical care, and you are correct that human nature for most people would not save on their own, so having the government force this insurance upon workers and their employers could be considered good/bad/socialist, however keep in mind you can choose to work or stay away from work, or even do cash jobs that avoid OASDI payments.
I for one am glad the program exists. It’s not going away because Congress will likely keep it more solvent by the time the year 2034 comes around. The last time social security faced a solvency issue was in 1983, the year Reagan and congress passed reforms that taxes benefits, made full retirement age at a later date, and cut benefits to those who pay into a social security replacement pension at their workplace which included cutting spousal benefits.
Recently there were some reforms to social security spousal claiming tactics, songoing dorwaed i see reforms in small steps adding up to keeping the program alive until the majority of boomers pass away in 30 years or so.
the proper term for programs like medicare and social security within a capitalistic setting is externality.... The problem is lack of concern and investment by both the private sector and gov. Its all about profits and political opportunism.
Government programs are always inefficient due to their size, and it’s not an investment program. It’s a budgeting program and the funds are tied to t-bills.
Part of the funding problem is the government is forced to keep rates low for a long time because so many people have debts locked in for a long time. The T-bill returns help stifle social security future returns as inflation way outpaces T-Bills, and part of the program’s benefits promise a COLA tied to CPI. T-bills have basically lost money due to inflation the past 10 years. If rates were to rise on the short end for higher T-bill returns, then the consumer suffers due to higher costs. It is one way of maintaining g inflation from running too rampant, but one way or another we have to pay for these low rates, and my bet is the price tag will be foot to the generation X and younger people as a bill paid with higher tax rates.
Although actuarial statistics states most underfunding can be satisfied by tasing the ceiling on FICA payroll to $300k instead of the current $130k. Also, by pushing back Full Retiremt Age (FRA) to ages 68, 69, and 70 during different phases. These two little tweaks can keep the system afloat until the year 2060-2070. I laugh when people say they won’t even count on social security, when our political system will always need it and they can’t ever undue it. It’s one of FDR’s trademark acts.
Size doesn't matter, there's micro management and its all proportionate. The problem is programs are subcontracted to the private sector at greatly inflated prices. I mean look at EBT cards, they're a give a way to Morgan Chase.... they get a transactional fee every time a card is swiped plus get paid to run the program.
^^^ Whis fucking logic you referring to? It’s not logic when it’s fact, big government programs are wasteful. Much can be said about big corporations. In fact, the tax base could be much larger if there was more mom and pop places jerking more cash and business local, yet since Walmart can sell it cheaper we all end up paying more in taxes elsewhere so state and local agencies can continue to be funded and provide local support.
Icey would be excellent as a member of the ruling class if they did a remake of the movie “Idiocracy”.
Walmart can sell it cheaper and be more efficient coz of its size, right???? Sort of like how the gov can ensure that large projects like schools and roads, libraries, parks, etc function.... due to its size and the size of the projects.
27 comments
No, I am not old enough to get such benefits. And I am OK if both were eliminated today. Many would not be though because the government has done a terrible thing and told the country it would take care of them. So no one has planned to take care of themselves.
I'd gladly forfeit my future benefits if I could take any future earnings that would go in it and instead invest them in my own retirement account where politicians couldn't just steal it when there is a short fall in the budget.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatt…
As homelessness rate rises for elderly, some finding shelter in cars
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/11/09/w…
@Sancho
Seriously you don't want to live past the age of 65? Most people consider that to be a pretty young age to die. I have a feeling you won't be so flippant about dying when you are 65.
It insures against some things that come along with old age; increased medical expenses, poverty due to loss of income. Medicare helps with certain medical care, and you are correct that human nature for most people would not save on their own, so having the government force this insurance upon workers and their employers could be considered good/bad/socialist, however keep in mind you can choose to work or stay away from work, or even do cash jobs that avoid OASDI payments.
I for one am glad the program exists. It’s not going away because Congress will likely keep it more solvent by the time the year 2034 comes around. The last time social security faced a solvency issue was in 1983, the year Reagan and congress passed reforms that taxes benefits, made full retirement age at a later date, and cut benefits to those who pay into a social security replacement pension at their workplace which included cutting spousal benefits.
Recently there were some reforms to social security spousal claiming tactics, songoing dorwaed i see reforms in small steps adding up to keeping the program alive until the majority of boomers pass away in 30 years or so.
Part of the funding problem is the government is forced to keep rates low for a long time because so many people have debts locked in for a long time. The T-bill returns help stifle social security future returns as inflation way outpaces T-Bills, and part of the program’s benefits promise a COLA tied to CPI. T-bills have basically lost money due to inflation the past 10 years. If rates were to rise on the short end for higher T-bill returns, then the consumer suffers due to higher costs. It is one way of maintaining g inflation from running too rampant, but one way or another we have to pay for these low rates, and my bet is the price tag will be foot to the generation X and younger people as a bill paid with higher tax rates.
Although actuarial statistics states most underfunding can be satisfied by tasing the ceiling on FICA payroll to $300k instead of the current $130k. Also, by pushing back Full Retiremt Age (FRA) to ages 68, 69, and 70 during different phases. These two little tweaks can keep the system afloat until the year 2060-2070. I laugh when people say they won’t even count on social security, when our political system will always need it and they can’t ever undue it. It’s one of FDR’s trademark acts.
Keep telling yourself that.
Icey would be excellent as a member of the ruling class if they did a remake of the movie “Idiocracy”.
Without that, we would follow the path of most historic societies, dividing into the very rich and the very poor.
Keynesianism is not really Socialism, but it is a way of saving Capitalism from itself.
SJG