simple question

[Que]

As long as there is an elderly voting block, there will be social security.



So why was social security implemented to begin with? Also, how do you propose to switch over to what you suggest?

TO the first part that changes as soon as the baby-boomers die off. The baby-boomers did not have enough kids to support the scheme. It has already collapsed, we just do not acknowledge it. The money from your check goes strait into the general fund and is spent on this years defense, entitlements and all the rest of it, there is no money, period. We are about about two workers for every one getting paid. Look at your check. See the Fica amount? Double that, that gives you your full contribution including the employers part. Unless you are self employed, then you pay the whole 15%. OK. Now double it again. Can you live on 30% of your check? That is what has to be given to retirees to make it solvent just this week.

The solution is the one that private industry already did, the 401K. The difference is a defined contribution plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan. You quit taking from the workers and giving it to the retirees. You let the workers have actual accounts that they pay into, and can watch grow. Give them whatever choices you like. I would settle for treasury bills or savings bonds over the current system.

No new workers are coerced into the system. Existing workers could be offered the opportunity based on actuarial tables to have an amount deposited in their new accounts (we could cheat as they do now and use IOUs instead of actual money) or they could elect to stay in and take their chances on the largesse of future congresses.

Those already getting payments would continue to do so and we would simply pay (as we are now anyway) out of the general fund. Cut spending and raise taxes as needed to eliminate all unfunded liabilities.

Yes it will pinch. Our parents shouldhave done this in 1980. Their parents should never have started the program.

As to why it was started. It was envisioned almost EXACTLY like Dolf's plan.

The life expectancy was around 66 years, so they figured, hell,, why not...lets take a little from these every-growing population of workers checks and do the "right thing" for these people that statistically speaking have only a year or so to live. If they live a few years more, ~shrug~ it is our Christian duty.

In the early years, people paid in a few dollars and got thousands and thousands of dollars in benefits. I read somewhere about the first recipient. She paid less than a year into the system. Blacks, who tended not to live to 65 at the time got nothing from the early payouts. It was never adjusted for the fact that instead of the projected year or two in benefits the average SS recipient can be expected to live to 78, which means collecting for 13 years. If they take early retirement it is 16 years.

Just that math is crazy. You work for 40 years and collect for 16.

 

[Pookie]

TO the first part that changes as soon as the baby-boomers die off.

You're living in your own fantasy world. There will always be an elderly population. There will always be one with kids worried about how their aging relatives will survive if social security is threatened. It's nothing short of political suicide.

The solution is the one that private industry already did, the 401K. The difference is a defined contribution plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan. You quit taking from the workers and giving it to the retirees. You let the workers have actual accounts that they pay into, and can watch grow. Give them whatever choices you like. I would settle for treasury bills or savings bonds over the current system.

No new workers are coerced into the system. Existing workers could be offered the opportunity based on actuarial tables to have an amount deposited in their new accounts (we could cheat as they do now and use IOUs instead of actual money) or they could elect to stay in and take their chances on the largesse of future congresses.

Those already getting payments would continue to do so and we would simply pay (as we are now anyway) out of the general fund. Cut spending and raise taxes as needed to eliminate all unfunded liabilities.

Yes it will pinch. Our parents shouldhave done this in 1980. Their parents should never have started the program.

Non-responsive. How do you implement your option?

As to why it was started. It was envisioned almost EXACTLY like Dolf's plan.

The life expectancy was around 66 years, so they figured, hell,, why not...lets take a little from these every-growing population of workers checks and do the "right thing" for these people that statistically speaking have only a year or so to live. If they live a few years more, ~shrug~ it is our Christian duty.

In the early years, people paid in a few dollars and got thousands and thousands of dollars in benefits. I read somewhere about the first recipient. She paid less than a year into the system. Blacks, who tended not to live to 65 at the time got nothing from the early payouts. It was never adjusted for the fact that instead of the projected year or two in benefits the average SS recipient can be expected to live to 78, which means collecting for 13 years. If they take early retirement it is 16 years.

Just that math is crazy. You work for 40 years and collect for 16.

Again, non-responsive. Why was social security implemented? Specifically, what problem was it addressing at the time?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You're living in your own fantasy world. There will always be an elderly population. There will always be one with kids worried about how their aging relatives will survive if social security is threatened. It's nothing short of political suicide.



Non-responsive. How do you implement your option?



Again, non-responsive. Why was social security implemented? Specifically, what problem was it addressing at the time?

He certainly has the deflectors runnin' at full power today.

It would appear that he lacks the intellectual capacity to address your questions.

Quite amusing, given his history of bragging about being the "smartest guy on the General Board".

 

[Lancecastor]

the "smartest guy on the General Board".

There is only 1...and that's me.

And I tire of these stupid troll threads.

 

[Que]

You're living in your own fantasy world. There will always be an elderly population. There will always be one with kids worried about how their aging relatives will survive if social security is threatened. It's nothing short of political suicide.



Non-responsive. How do you implement your option?



Again, non-responsive. Why was social security implemented? Specifically, what problem was it addressing at the time?

For the first part there will not be the disproportionate number of seniors in the future. People care about their grandma, not yours, at least not if they have to pay for it. SS tax is regressive. It bites deepest in the lowest wage earners.


For the second part:

Read it again.

1) new workers opt out.
2) existing workers bought out or opt in
3) existing recipients paid out of general fund just as they are now. What part of cut spending and raise taxes did you not get?

and for the third part

Read it again.

It was designed to take care of the absolute indigent elderly among us for the last year or two of life. It was EXPECTED at that time that you worked or you starved. there was no section 8 housing. there were no food stamps. No able-bodied person was supported by the government.

It was assumed that there would be SOME elderly unable to work and it was started to address that and that only.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Rob I am sure Pookie can hold her own in the discussion without you cheering from the sideliines. You haven't the legs for the skirt, pumpkin.

Was there something specific you wanted to add to the discussion or just your own score-keeping? As you well know, it is you and only you that has made that claim by #AscriptionAgain on my behalf. Since you have every possible "high powered weapon" in your, "arsenal of destruction," as you call it- carefully indexed and categorized perhaps you can find a single instance where I claimed such a thing? No? Thought not. STFU, wannabe as Eyer would put it.

 

[Pookie]

For the first part there will not be the disproportionate number of seniors in the future. People care about their grandma, not yours, at least not if they have to pay for it. SS tax is regressive. It bites deepest in the lowest wage earners.

Disproportionate or not, elderly relatives are not going to become extinct even after baby boomers are gone.

For the second part:

Read it again.

1) new workers opt out.
2) existing workers bought out or opt in
3) existing recipients paid out of general fund just as they are now. What part of cut spending and raise taxes did you not get?

Oh, I understand it. I think your oversimplification of it is ... interesting. You'd think with it being so easy, although it would be a "pinch" for a bit, that it would've already been done. It seems like a no-brainer. Change from a guaranteed minimum retirement salary for grandma and grandpa to one based solely on the performance of private investments and savings. Nothing could go wrong with that! It should be a very popular idea right now. I wonder why it isn't?

and for the third part

Read it again.

It was designed to take care of the absolute indigent elderly among us for the last year or two of life. It was EXPECTED at that time that you worked or you starved. there was no section 8 housing. there were no food stamps. No able-bodied person was supported by the government.

It was assumed that there would be SOME elderly unable to work and it was started to address that and that only.

@Rob, was there something specific you wanted to add to the discussion or just your own score-keeping?

Yes, it was implemented to protect those who were retired for life and either had no savings or had lost them in a somewhat recent "economic downturn" at the time. Granted, people weren't expected to live long after they retired and collect it very long, but it was still a guaranteed lifetime retirement benefit. One that wasn't at risk to market fluctuations, wouldn't disappear through business failures, or be stolen by fraudulent investment schemes.

I just can't imagine why people would be worried about that kind of thing in this day and age.

 

[neci]

the quality of a society can be told by how it cares for its most vulnerable. the oldest and the youngest. the sickest and the poorest. i do not believe we should leave people to die alone with no care, with no help, with no assistance. if that is what they want, that is their right, but i do not believe hospice or medical care should be denied on the inability to pay. call me a socialist. it doesn't bother me.

 

[eyer]

The first 9 months of life vs. The last 12 months of life...

...the very beginning of human life vs. the very end of human life.

Socialist bozos like dolf and Wings maintain that they have an inalienable right to intentionally kill human life within its first 9 months, as they both believe an equally inalienable right to intentionally end human life within its last 12 months should also be established. They claim this is only their and their family's business and no one else should have any say about it - it's no one else's business, it's their choice, and only their choice, and totally all about that magically progressive word, compassion...

...yet both socialists are here in this thread compassionlessly insisting that no other individuals should have any choice at all whether they choose to contribute to abortion, assisted suicide, or the caring of their families during the last months of their lives - compassionlessly dictating that no one has the inalienable right to individually decide how they individually choose to deal with their individual property, that that is the collective's right to decide, not the individual's.

I demand my right to kill with compassion...

...and you have no right to compassionlessly not support me.

The world should be much better off when such hypocritically old, white, progressive women die...

...alas:

But then there are the socialistlite bozos who always protest so much against the ideals of their more progressive siblings, always pulling out their boilerpate free market/capitalism crap...

...yet go along with the inevitable majority rule anyway, and fund for the rest of their lives the exact socialist principles they so hypocritically spew against.

Socialistlite bozos like vetteman, who protests so much about his socialist state and country, yet continues to fully financially enable both...

...simply because the fruits from compromising on his wannabe principles are far sweeter than the call of duty to stand uncompromisingly upon them.

Individual health care is now totally dictated by federal mandate and enforced by force of financial penalty (for now); within 25 years (at most), the employment/salary situation will be judged by socialists and socialistlites alike to be in need of full progressive overhaul, too...

...within that same 25 years at most, the United States of America will finally cease to exist as constituted, and within 50 years it'll be nothing more than a franchise of Communist China, 500 million people living with the borders of the old continental US, totally unable to support themselves, totally dependent on the "compassion" of perpetual, tyrannical wannabe mommys like dolf and Wings.

 

[eyer]

the quality of a society can be told by how it cares for its most vulnerable. the oldest and the youngest. the sickest and the poorest. i do not believe we should leave people to die alone with no care, with no help, with no assistance. if that is what they want, that is their right, but i do not believe hospice or medical care should be denied on the inability to pay. call me a socialist. it doesn't bother me.

Just like it doesn't bother you that someone else has to risk their life for your statist mandates to be enforced...

...right, neci?

You declare war on Putin...

...but insist others should fight that war for you.

You declare that all should contribute to your socialist ideals without any individual choice at all...

...and then you and your collective gang form government to forcefully extract that collective cost because - just like your chances of fighting your own wars - you have no chance of success individually on your own.

You're nothing but a socialist bully who's only relevant as long as you can join a majority gang.

 

[Que]

Disproportionate or not, elderly relatives are not going to become extinct even after baby boomers are gone.



Oh, I understand it. I think your oversimplification of it is ... interesting. You'd think with it being so easy, although it would be a "pinch" for a bit, that it would've already been done. It seems like a no-brainer. Change from a guaranteed minimum retirement salary for grandma and grandpa to one based solely on the performance of private investments and savings. Nothing could go wrong with that! It should be a very popular idea right now. I wonder why it isn't?



Yes, it was implemented to protect those who were retired for life and either had no savings or had lost them in a somewhat recent "economic downturn" at the time. Granted, people weren't expected to live long after they retired and collect it very long, but it was still a guaranteed lifetime retirement benefit. One that wasn't at risk to market fluctuations, wouldn't disappear through business failures, or be stolen by fraudulent investment schemes.

I just can't imagine why people would be worried about that kind of thing in this day and age.

How did that "modest" investment in the "safety net" balloon to the 170 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability it is now?

And as I pointed out, it is not "guaranteed." there are no set conditions for benefits or even that it will continue.

You speak of "fraudulent investment schemes" completely without irony, unless I failed to detect sarcasm, again.

"People being worried" about their future is the reason the should plan for it, not vote for politicians to enact some unsustainable fix.

The study of economics is largely historical because with the large number of variables it is not very good at predicting future events. There is one immutable law of economics that, though they ignore it, Keynesian are familiar with: If something cannot continue indefinitely, it will come to an end.

 

[Ishmael]

Ish, any time you have to preface your reply with a cop-out warning about the meaning of your words means you know what you're about to say is going to be pretty shitty. "I don't mean to offend" "I don't mean you but" and so on.

What sort of society do you want to live in? Do you want to be taken care of in your last days? Do you want to leave anything to your son after you're gone? Do you want your grandchildren to have some of your estate to maybe grow on, attend college or whatnot? Have you dealt with our palliative care in this country yet? Have you had to move a loved one into a nursing home yet?

Let's start with the preface crack. Every time I don't explain that I get inundated with first or third person sob stories which are totally meaningless when making decisions or having discussions concerning public policy.

What all of the compassionate seem to conveniently forget, or never got through the itty-bitty minds is that the demand is universal, 100% of the population, while resources are finite. The absolute minimum palliative care so the individual can die with some dignity, fine. A showering of benefits, no way.

And to those of you spouting the mantra about "how a society treats its unfortunate" is utter BULLSHIT when the individuals spouting that drivel are selling generations yet unborn into government indentured servitude. Those people are NOT concerned about the unfortunate, they are concerned about themselves and trying to make certain they get to raid the treasury before it's all gone, leaving the unborn to pay the bill. I hold these people in utter contempt.

Ishmael

 

[butters]

liar liar, pants on fire, AJ. tsk tsk tsk. call me what you like it doesn't change what you are and what others concluded about you when they read what you wrote before. you clearly think about me way more than you ever cross my mind. bless.

^^ all the text or time i'm wasting on you.

 

[Sean]

Let's start with the preface crack. Every time I don't explain that I get inundated with first or third person sob stories which are totally meaningless when making decisions or having discussions concerning public policy.

What all of the compassionate seem to conveniently forget, or never got through the itty-bitty minds is that the demand is universal, 100% of the population, while resources are finite. The absolute minimum palliative care so the individual can die with some dignity, fine. A showering of benefits, no way.

And to those of you spouting the mantra about "how a society treats its unfortunate" is utter BULLSHIT when the individuals spouting that drivel are selling generations yet unborn into government indentured servitude. Those people are NOT concerned about the unfortunate, they are concerned about themselves and trying to make certain they get to raid the treasury before it's all gone, leaving the unborn to pay the bill. I hold these people in utter contempt.

Ishmael

Look, we know you're a cunt, alright? Jesus, give it a rest.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Let's start with the preface crack. Every time I don't explain that I get inundated with first or third person sob stories which are totally meaningless when making decisions or having discussions concerning public policy.

What all of the compassionate seem to conveniently forget, or never got through the itty-bitty minds is that the demand is universal, 100% of the population, while resources are finite. The absolute minimum palliative care so the individual can die with some dignity, fine. A showering of benefits, no way.

And to those of you spouting the mantra about "how a society treats its unfortunate" is utter BULLSHIT when the individuals spouting that drivel are selling generations yet unborn into government indentured servitude. Those people are NOT concerned about the unfortunate, they are concerned about themselves and trying to make certain they get to raid the treasury before it's all gone, leaving the unborn to pay the bill. I hold these people in utter contempt.

Ishmael

Oh teh absolute irony of a man who hides behind "mah two boys are DED!" lecturing others on using sob stories.

 

[Lancecastor]

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/newyrkr.gif

 

[Lancecastor]

25% of all deaths in the USA are in nursing homes.


http://www.greatplacesinc.com/Portals/0/Laurence/nursing%20home%20abuse.jpg

 

[Que]

Oh dear. "What others think of you..."

Theres an ominous sentence if ever there was. I can only imagine how that must keep a person up nights wondering who "they" are and what they must think.

 

[Pookie]

How did that "modest" investment in the "safety net" balloon to the 170 TRILLION dollar unfunded liability it is now?

Poor management, but it's still around. And will be for a long time to come.

Whereas poor management of a private retirement fund ... well ...

And as I pointed out, it is not "guaranteed." there are no set conditions for benefits or even that it will continue.

No guarantee other than the political lives of career politicians depend on it surviving. Letting it fail isn't an option to them. It's guarantee is just about up there with death and taxes.

You speak of "fraudulent investment schemes" completely without irony, unless I failed to detect sarcasm, again.

I speak of it as a reality of the private sector. And I know you view social security as a ponzi scheme. There is a significant difference. Social security doesn't obscure the fact that it is paid for by new entrants. While it has its flaws, it can't fail like ponzi schemes do.

"People being worried" about their future is the reason the should plan for it, not vote for politicians to enact some unsustainable fix.

There will be a fix to the current problems to enable it to survive. And even more fixes to problems in the future. Its sustainable like that.

Having people depend on the private sector which can fail without providing an alternative. is precisely why social security was implemented. The private sector has failed people's best plans before, and it will again. The private sector doesn’t provide a safety net for the most vulnerable when it does fail.

No matter how successful people may plan, there will be those who don't succeed. The elderly aren't in a position to overcome failure due to their own poor planning, bad choices, economic downturns, or just plain being the victim of things unable to foresee or outside of their control.

 

[Lancecastor]

Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune backing up Ishmael's claim
that "raiding the treasury"for pensions is going to
ruin the USA for future generations.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1880/12/26/page/2/article/raiding-the-treasury/index.html#text


It's from 1880.

 

[doowdniw]

The solution is the one that private industry already did, the 401K. The difference is a defined contribution plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan. You quit taking from the workers and giving it to the retirees. You let the workers have actual accounts that they pay into, and can watch grow. Give them whatever choices you like. I would settle for treasury bills or savings bonds over the current system.

The 401K is a government solution (Section 401K of the Internal Revenue Code) which the private sector funds. If invested into correctly and regularly, over time 401K accounts can accumulate into significant wealth. I wouldn't settle for t-bills and savings bonds as an investment vehicle unless I expected to not last past 12 months and wanted all of my principal back within that period.

 

[doowdniw]

if you'd care to expand on your thoughts, what it would depend upon, i would be interested.

While the concept is noble, as with any government program, the devil is in the details. It would depend on the ability of the provider to ensure the legitimate needs of the receiver, and to prevent individuals and families from gaming the system to receive benefits they would not legitimately be entitled to. It would depend on the ability of the provider to ensure that fraud does not occur. An example would be a system to look back at the individual's finances over an extended period to ensure assets/wealth were not dissipated to family and friends in order to qualify as having "limited means".

If they are receiving the other benefits, I don't believe income should be subsidized.

 

[Disgustipated]

Here's an article from the Chicago Tribune backing up Ishmael's claim
that "raiding the treasury"for pensions is going to
ruin the USA for future generations.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1880/12/26/page/2/article/raiding-the-treasury/index.html#text


It's from 1880.

Makes sense. Ish was around back then.

 

[Tathagata]

They have to want to change.

What about other lifestyle choices? Do they enter into the calculus? In the US, in the name of savings, there are great advocates of what I would call health sin taxes on lifestyle choices such as diet (obesity), soda, salt, tobacco, ammunition...

Perhaps the burden of some people are too great a cost to society.

I hope you never find yourself or anyone close to you to be a " burden to society"

 

[RobDownSouth]

I hope you never find yourself or anyone close to you to be a " burden to society"

I wouldn't worry, if and when the Chief and/or his loved ones becomes a "burden to society", he will share his "that...that...that's different" rationale out of the other side of his mouth like he usually does.

 

[Adre]

I wouldn't worry, if and when the Chief and/or his loved ones becomes a "burden to society", he will share his "that...that...that's different" rationale out of the other side of his mouth like he usually does.

I imagine he has one of those clever corollaries to cover situations like this. As we know he and his Randian pals did everything on their own and require help from no one and intend to help no one.