End Social Security

[Exterous]

Social security is stealing from the young to give to the poor. It is robbing the younger generations especially since there will be nothing left for them. People shoudl be able to plan there own future and save by themselves not the government stealing from them.

People need to be self reliant instead of on the government. As well Social security is bankrupting this country and is wrong.

Do you agree that social security must be ended?

What do you propose that we do with the 80% of Americans that did not save enough for retirement? What about the 75% that are currently not saving enough for retirement during their working years? I used to think that saving would be something we could rely on people to do but the gravity of these statistics clearly proves that wrong. Its a systemic problem and SS won't go anywhere until we fix the underlying issue

Social Security needs to be reformed. As it stands now, as a 33 year old I very highly doubt SS will still be solvent in 30+ years when I would start to draw from it unless something is changed.

According to the SS administration there will be no problem in supplying you with ~80% of your promised benefits in 2038. Realistically reforming SS is pretty simple. You could slowly raise the age over the next couple of decades and then peg it to life expectancy. You could remove the tax and contribution caps which would solve most of the problem. If you want to stick it to people who make more you could remove the tax cap but keep the benefit cap in place and be fine for a really really long time.

The sad thing is that fixing it is easy but no one will do it. This does not bode well for more complex and more dangerous problems with Medicare/Medicaid

 

[HendrixFan]

It is a Ponzi scheme because the surplus isn't going to the "investors," but the creator of the scheme (in this case, the government's general fund) which is entirely the point of the exercise.

The SS trust purchases government bonds with the surplus (by law), bonds that will be cashed out and be repaid in full unless we have a complete collapse of our country, at which point SS is a minor concern. The money the government brought in from the bond purchases the government turned around and spent.

The "investors" in SS are invested in government bonds. How is that a ponzi scheme?

 

[hal2kilo]

Social Security only needs minor changes to make it sustainable indefinately.

One is to slightly raise the retirement at for those under 50.

The other is raise/do away with the cap what income is taxed for FICA purposes.

Republicans want to means test SS. SS should NOT be means tested and everyone should have to pay the same amount no matter the income levels.

Means testing for social security would be it's death knell. It's not welfare for the old, it is insurance. Cause that's what it will be called by the Republicons as soon as you do.

 

[glenn1]

I doesn't even need 40 years or your other BS. Raise the friggin cap!!!!!!!!!

Yur done.

That would help with the solvency issues as it's currently constructed, but other problems remain. Social Security is essentially a very badly designed annuity, where the participants have no ownership rights or vested interest in the program, premiums and benefits are determined entirely at the whim of politicians, and with no reserve fund to pay future benefits. You lose all monies paid in if you die, which has an incredible adverse impact on minorities and blue collar workers. There's also a problem on the other end - for those with extremely long lifespans (especially those with low incomes during their lives), the actual annuity payouts of social security far exceed the paid-in premiums.

 

[HendrixFan]

You lose all monies paid in if you die, which has an incredible adverse impact on minorities and blue collar workers.

SS isn't for "you" it is for "us", just like public education. It is a societal benefit beyond the individual benefit.

 

[glenn1]

The SS trust purchases government bonds with the surplus (by law), bonds that will be cashed out and be repaid in full unless we have a complete collapse of our country, at which point SS is a minor concern. The money the government brought in from the bond purchases the government turned around and spent.

The "investors" in SS are invested in government bonds. How is that a ponzi scheme?

Because the investors don't own the bonds directly and have no ownership rights in the bonds; therefore the "investment" is an IOU of the government to itself and any payout is entirely at the whim of Congress. If each SS participant was provided with an account they owned, and their SS payments ("premiums") purchased Treasury bonds in that account it would no longer be a Ponzi scheme, although solvency might still be a concern.

 

[bignateyk]

Yes it needs to be ended. Just put it all under one blanket and call it welfare. No reason people who have a million dollars in retirement need to be collecting more money. If you made it need based the cost would go down for everyone. And people might try saving a little more on their own.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Because they wont plan there own retirement and expect the government to pay for everything, leeches

I am not trolling

They're investing their own money into it, how are they leeches?

And yes, you are trolling b/c no one can be as bigoted and ignorant as yourself.

 

[Incorruptible]

What do you propose that we do with the 80% of Americans that did not save enough for retirement? What about the 75% that are currently not saving enough for retirement during their working years? I used to think that saving would be something we could rely on people to do but the gravity of these statistics clearly proves that wrong. Its a systemic problem and SS won't go anywhere until we fix the underlying issue


That's not my problem, they should be planning there own retirement and not relying on the government. If SS wasn't there they would actually have to do it themselves. By your logic we should ban drugs because people hurt themselves using them

According to the SS administration there will be no problem in supplying you with ~80% of your promised benefits in 2038. Realistically reforming SS is pretty simple. You could slowly raise the age over the next couple of decades and then peg it to life expectancy. You could remove the tax and contribution caps which would solve most of the problem. If you want to stick it to people who make more you could remove the tax cap but keep the benefit cap in place and be fine for a really really long time.

The sad thing is that fixing it is easy but no one will do it. This does not bode well for more complex and more dangerous problems with Medicare/Medicaid

Eventually SS will run out its not sustainable the way it is. As well illegal immigrants will later on be able to collect it as well.

 

[HendrixFan]

Because the investors don't own the bonds directly and have no ownership rights in the bonds; therefore the "investment" is an IOU of the government to itself and any payout is entirely at the whim of Congress.

I don't think you know what a ponzi scheme is. They collapse on the weight of themselves because there is no investment at all, it is all a mirage to extract money from people. SS isn't meant to extract money, it is a fund set up to ensure stability for the old and disabled. It does that.

 

[sunzt]

SS should be optional.

 

[Incorruptible]

I don't think you know what a ponzi scheme is. They collapse on the weight of themselves because there is no investment at all, it is all a mirage to extract money from people. SS isn't meant to extract money, it is a fund set up to ensure stability for the old and disabled. It does that.

How about they ensure stability for themselves instead of stealing from me?

 

[HendrixFan]

How about they ensure stability for themselves instead of stealing from me?

Do you honestly need me to explain how SS works?

The only "risk" that you will be left without anything to show for the money you paid in is if Congress votes to privatize SS and it effectively strips away money coming into the system. Due to the large multi trillion dollar surplus SS has run over the years, it is solvent for quite some time. If there were concerns over insolvency at any point small changes to the payin rates, payout rates, or age limits would address it.

 

[Incorruptible]

Do you honestly need me to explain how SS works?

The only "risk" that you will be left without anything to show for the money you paid in is if Congress votes to privatize SS and it effectively strips away money coming into the system. Due to the large multi trillion dollar surplus SS has run over the years, it is solvent for quite some time. If there were concerns over insolvency at any point small changes to the payin rates, payout rates, or age limits would address it.

It still shouldn't exist. I dont want to pay into SS, let people opt out and no bailouts/subsidies/deficits

 

[glenn1]

I don't think you know what a ponzi scheme is. They collapse on the weight of themselves because there is no investment at all, it is all a mirage to extract money from people. SS isn't meant to extract money, it is a fund set up to ensure stability for the old and disabled. It does that.

Social Security isn't an investment; how could it be since it's not an asset, ownership is not possible, it's not backed by collateral or counter-parties, and its payment depends completely on the whims of Congress. The current government issuing and holding its own bonds to fund future liabilities makes a mockery of the idea that it's an investment; it's a self-cancelling accounting notation where the government holds both the credit and debit simultaneously.

Wikipedia has a good definition for a Ponzi Scheme, and Social Security matches it exactly:

a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

 

[soulcougher73]

Eventually SS will run out its not sustainable the way it is. As well illegal immigrants will later on be able to collect it as well.

You really dont know how SS works do you? It's not welfare.

 

[HendrixFan]

It still shouldn't exist. I dont want to pay into SS, let people opt out and no bailouts/subsidies/deficits

Then find a different society to be a part of, one without social safety nets. It is one of the hallmarks of any reasonably advanced society so good luck on your search!

 

[Incorruptible]

Then find a different society to be a part of, one without social safety nets. It is one of the hallmarks of any reasonably advanced society so good luck on your search!

No its not. Freedom is one of the hallmarks of any reasonably advanced society. Why cant they take care of themselves, is that so hard to understand?

 

[soulcougher73]

It still shouldn't exist. I dont want to pay into SS, let people opt out and no bailouts/subsidies/deficits

It should exist, but i would be fine if they let people opt out but only if they sign a waiver that they will never ask the government for anything as long as they live. You lose your investments due to the market and come crawling back they will just give you a boot to the head and tell you to go beg on a corner.

 

[Incorruptible]

It should exist, but i would be fine if they let people opt out but only if they sign a waiver that they will never ask the government for anything as long as they live. You lose your investments due to the market and come crawling back they will just give you a boot to the head and tell you to go beg on a corner.

I agree let them opt out and get there money back but if anything happens to social security then the ones on it must cover the losses. The taxpayer shouldn't have to cover anything.

Those bastards better not come to me for a bailout since I will just laugh at them


As well if I lose my investments because the government screwed up the economy there is a problem. It would have to be a free market economy

Glad to see we agree on something

 

[HendrixFan]

Social Security isn't an investment; how could it be since it's not an asset, ownership is not possible, it's not backed by collateral or counter-parties, and its payment depends completely on the whims of Congress.

There are people that pay into SS and get more back than they put in, there are people who pay in and get less back than they put in. Just like insurance, not every individual "profits" but collectively we are all better off.

Are you trying to argue that the stability and reliability of SS is less than that of any company that offers a 401k or IRA?

 

[jackschmittusa]

I figure that in 1966, the government and I had entered into a deal. I would pay a portion of my wages and my employer would pay a similar amount (out of its total compensation funds, meaning less for my wages) and the government would pay me a stipend in my retirement years.

I and my employers have carried out our end of the bargain. The government has begun carrying out its end for me.

Lazy? I had to work to get what I have. I did make plans for my retirement, and they included SS as one element of it.

You, on the other hand, would like to disrupt my retirement. I am not sympathetic to your viewpoint.

If you would like to discuss ways to insure it is there for you too, I am happy to do that.

 

[HendrixFan]

No its not. Freedom is one of the hallmarks of any reasonably advanced society. Why cant they take care of themselves, is that so hard to understand?

Can you point me to an advanced society that doesn't have social safety nets? Also, people are taking care of themselves because they *do* pay into SS.

 

[glenn1]

There are people that pay into SS and get more back than they put in, there are people who pay in and get less back than they put in. Just like insurance, not every individual "profits" but collectively we are all better off.

Are you trying to argue that the stability and reliability of SS is less than that of any company that offers a 401k or IRA?

Amount paid in or paid out doesn't change the nature of the system. You can argue we're better off with it, but you can't argue that it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

Comparing Social Security to a defined contribution plan like a 401(k) just shows you are financially illiterate. Here's a quick clue - the company doesn't own the assets in the participant's 401(k) plan; the participant does (with the possible exception of employer match funds until they're vested) so the "reliability" of the company is immaterial. If you're comparing 401(k) plans generally directly to SS, then yes the 401k is absolutely more reliable due to the participant ownership; absent nationalization, divorce, or similar even the funds are yours and cannot be taken away whereas again SS is completely paid at the whim of Congress.

 

[HendrixFan]

Amount paid in or paid out doesn't change the nature of the system. You can argue we're better off with it, but you can't argue that it's not a Ponzi Scheme.

A ponzi scheme is not sustainable. It cannot be. SS is sustainable.

Comparing Social Security to a defined contribution plan like a 401(k) just shows you are financially illiterate. Here's a quick clue - the company doesn't own the assets in the participant's 401(k) plan; the participant does (with the possible exception of employer match funds until they're vested) so the "reliability" of the company is immaterial. If you're comparing 401(k) plans generally directly to SS, then yes the 401k is absolutely more reliable due to the participant ownership; absent nationalization, divorce, or similar even the funds are yours and cannot be taken away whereas again SS is completely paid at the whim of Congress.

I understand that. But when the market crashes like it did in '08 your money gets decimated with no FDIC backing. Even poor performing funds and fees can eat away at returns significantly. The stability and reliability of retirement funds is far more volatile in a 401k or IRA than SS. Yes, Congress can come and pass a law saying they are keeping all the SS money but do you honestly see that happening, ever? The hundreds of millions of people who paid into SS will vote those clowns out immediately.

SS is the ultimate in low risk, low reward. I don't know how you could think any 401k or IRA could have less risk (be more stable or reliable).