Social Security: Years of screwing the poor workers

[Zebo]

Hard facts to deal with but let me see if I can explain.
http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

As you can see from the link the Federal Government "borrows" form workers social security to pay down part of the deficit created by Bush not wanting to levy income tax on the rich. Reagan helped too when he raised payroll taxes (SS), a regressive tax which workers pay, and slashed income tax on the top earners. This led to a major general deficits, which of course, was paid down by the social security tax which was running surplus.

They always tell you that Social Security is becoming insolvent. I wonder why?? The fact is, social security will run surpluses until 2017. Had the government kept it's grimy hands off of it, it would be solvent forever. But no, had to give a capital gains tax cut and couldn't dare talk about raising taxes on those at the top..

Essentially they fucked you, again.

 

[quest55720]

No it is screwing anyone under 40 or so. A poor worker who is over 40 will atleast see the money back they put in. The rest of us under 40 are just having the money stolen from us each pay check to fund pork projects.

 

[senseamp]

Yep, time has come to pay the piper, no we'll be taxing the rich to pay for SS benefits.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, time has come to pay the piper, no we'll be taxing the rich to pay for SS benefits.

I'm from the school that government is already taxing its peasants enough, the government must reduce expenses AND institute a "wealth tax" on those over say 10 million. Income is too easy to get around if you have slightest ambition to.

 

[Genx87]

It is a fucking ponzi scheme, of course it isn sustainable.

One thing people need to also understand with the cap on payroll. The benefits also cap at that ceiling. I have been a fan of scrapping the system and putting them on the welfare rolls.

 

[Xavier434]

The purpose of SS is a necessary trump card. Relying on private investments alone is too risky from the point of the entire country. I am not saying that the SS program itself is not in need of some updating and reform. It does. However, it's purpose is very justified. We need it.

 

[winnar111]

It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

 

[StageLeft]

No argument I think it's good for the gov to have some kind of a backup plan for the worst off or least lucky or whatever, but in its current form SS is a complete cluster fvck of epic proportions. For one thing, it should only be applied in a minority of cases; people should be going to retirement, and knowing this when they start their careers, with the assumption that the gov will not be covering their ass. Thus, invest/save, and have some tripwire that only in certain circumstances do people get SS.

Most of us are paying 12.5% (the employer part is money we could otherwise see) for a paltry, sad return on investment.

 

[MovingTarget]

SS is in need of some major reform. Its purpose was noble, and despite its faults, it has served our country well, nearly eliminating the systemic poverty we once had for the elderly. SS is not meant to be the sole source of one's retirement (see my 3-legged stool comparison), but if pensions are pulled/investments tank/savings evaporate it is there to at least provide a minimum standard of living. To that end, SS solvency needs to be assured. Eliminating the cap on payroll taxes is a start, but I feel we must also cap benefits for those who were high earners. It does betray some of the initial spirit of SS (that benefits are earned as you pay into them similar to annuities), but after years of putting SS funds to other uses the moral hazard is greatly diminished. It won't solve the solvency problem, but it is a start. Solvency/stability is key to the program, not necessarily rate of return, which is more prominent in the personal retirement investments people make (401k, etc).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: winnar111
It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

Um not really.. Optimal matrix is $22,500 in wages. Get 78% of benefits as someone who paid 4.5x as much.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: winnar111
It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

Um not really.. Optimal matrix is $22,500 in wages. Get 78% of benefits as someone who paid 4.5x as much.

Isn't that about the definition of 'poor'? They pay 12.6% but get the optimal benefit; Bill Gates pays .00005% but doesn't get back anything.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
SS is in need of some major reform. Its purpose was noble, and despite its faults, it has served our country well, nearly eliminating the systemic poverty we once had for the elderly.

Who cares about purpose? "Please give me all your money, it's for a noble cause".... seriously, that's all it takes for you? SS is a giant ponzi scheme which started off as a redistribution factory. If people don't save for retirement, they die earlier. It's true. Whose fault is that? Can someone be a spendthrift and when the time comes to retire, vote themselves some money from the savers' wallets as a cushion? How does that do anything but guarantee equal misery, discourage savings, and defer personal responsibility to politicians. Nobody who puts money in actually realizes a return, that would assume government is adjusting the payout with honest inflation calculations. Otherwise, you're just getting higher nominal payouts but with less total purchasing power. And when the scheme finally implodes, the cost of this program will really become obvious.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: winnar111
It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

Um not really.. Optimal matrix is $22,500 in wages. Get 78% of benefits as someone who paid 4.5x as much.

Isn't that about the definition of 'poor'? They pay 12.6% but get the optimal benefit; Bill Gates pays .00005% but doesn't get back anything.

Bill Gates doesn't bitch about it either.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
SS is in need of some major reform. Its purpose was noble, and despite its faults, it has served our country well, nearly eliminating the systemic poverty we once had for the elderly.

Who cares about purpose? "Please give me all your money, it's for a noble cause".... seriously, that's all it takes for you? SS is a giant ponzi scheme which started off as a redistribution factory. If people don't save for retirement, they die earlier. It's true. Whose fault is that? Can someone be a spendthrift and when the time comes to retire, vote themselves some money from the savers' wallets as a cushion? How does that do anything but guarantee equal misery, discourage savings, and defer personal responsibility to politicians. Nobody who puts money in actually realizes a return, that would assume government is adjusting the payout with honest inflation calculations. Otherwise, you're just getting higher nominal payouts but with less total purchasing power. And when the scheme finally implodes, the cost of this program will really become obvious.

Maybe you need to look back to the days when SS was first put together. FDR understood the insurance industry quite well, and modeled the SS system around it. People were to pay into SS, and later receive benefits the same way you would an annuity. SS isn't about receiving the best return on investment, it is about ensuring a minimum floor on your standard of living in your later years. Perhaps we should just eliminate SS or privatize it, thus returning ourselves to the days of the literal Poor House, with the elderly living in squalor on scales we haven't seen in our lifetimes. Screw that. A ponzi scheme starting off as a redistribution factory? Wow....talk about skewed, idealogically biased, revisionist history.

 

[ElFenix]

we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

Please.

You, and the other less-than Twenty-Percenters, keep clinging to that fantasy ...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: winnar111
It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

Um not really.. Optimal matrix is $22,500 in wages. Get 78% of benefits as someone who paid 4.5x as much.

Isn't that about the definition of 'poor'? They pay 12.6% but get the optimal benefit; Bill Gates pays .00005% but doesn't get back anything.

Bill Gates and others who make money almost entirely off of investments pay no social security tax. So if they do pay something, it's off the nominal wage they might get for working for a company (so overall, they pay very, very little and may not even hit the SS tax cap for the year).

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: winnar111
It's not screwing when the money you get back is proportional to what you put in. Pay to play.

Um not really.. Optimal matrix is $22,500 in wages. Get 78% of benefits as someone who paid 4.5x as much.

Isn't that about the definition of 'poor'? They pay 12.6% but get the optimal benefit; Bill Gates pays .00005% but doesn't get back anything.

Bill Gates and others who make money almost entirely off of investments pay no social security tax. So if they do pay something, it's off the nominal wage they might get for working for a company (so overall, they pay very, very little and may not even hit the SS tax cap for the year).

And they still get back in proportion what they put in. He's not going to get 7 figure SS checks.

What's the problem?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

SS is currently invest in t-bills and i never said anything about changing that.

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

Please.

You, and the other less-than Twenty-Percenters, keep clinging to that fantasy ...

ah, good, personal insults rather than logic and fact. and what fantasy is it that you think i cling to?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

SS is currently invest in t-bills and i never said anything about changing that.

What exactly do you want to change? "Privatizing" can mean a great many different things.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix
we need to privatize social security so that congress can't monkey with people's retirements any time they feel like it.

...and what happens when we go through really bad economic times like this one again and those private SS funds that were invested over the years suddenly become almost worthless? Where is the money going to come from that so many retired Americans rely on then?

SS is currently invest in t-bills and i never said anything about changing that.

What exactly do you want to change? "Privatizing" can mean a great many different things.

i want to fix the exact thing i said i would: making it so congress can't monkey with it any time they feel like. property right. SS was sold as insurance, but if i buy an annuity with insurance they have to pay out or i can sue them for breach of contract. with SS, congress could decide one day to means test benefits and you can't do anything about it other than vote and protest.


edit: at least, i never said anything about moving it out of tbills in this thread, at least.

 

[Craig234]

The problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program.

Fix the right thing. SS has a huge benefit in preventing elder poverty, and it's efficient.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i want to fix the exact thing i said i would: making it so congress can't monkey with it any time they feel like. property right. SS was sold as insurance, but if i buy an annuity with insurance they have to pay out or i can sue them for breach of contract. with SS, congress could decide one day to means test benefits and you can't do anything about it other than vote and protest.


edit: at least, i never said anything about moving it out of tbills in this thread, at least.

I'd have to think about that for a while. I think it really boils down to the details regarding how we make it so congress does not have as much flexible control over it.

At the end of the day, all I really want is there to be a nearly risk free backup plan for retirement and that is a very thin "nearly". I'm open to changes and reform, but I am not willing to increase risks. I believe the purpose of SS is very necessary.

 

[soulcougher73]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The problem is the misuse of the SS funds, not the SS program.

Fix the right thing. SS has a huge benefit in preventing elder poverty, and it's efficient.

This. Its not the program that is bad, its the misuse or implementation of the program. But the idea behind it is a sound one for any country.