If you could opt out of social security, would you do it?

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: Genx87
Like I said, if you are worried about disability, create another program. SS is being sold as a retirement plan, not a disability program. I dont see the benefits of a risk management tool when it cant sustain itself over the long run. It should be run like a wealth accumulation tool and that thinking is probably why we are stagnant on any kind of reform. I am sure in the end they will simply raise taxes like they always do to cover the failures in design of the system, hurting the middle class further.

I still ask you if you think disability insurance costs 12.8% of your salary? If I went into the private sector would they charge me that much? You dont seem to want to answer the question.

Does it or doesnt it?

You are right that our differences are in risk managment vs wealth accumulation. That you do not manage your risk (typical percieved invulnerability of youth?) provides anecdotal evidence for exactly why we need a way to manage that risk.

I do not nothink that disability insurance costs 12.8%. I challenged you and other posters to do the research and finally (not still) you now answer my question with a question.

In truth, you probably cannot obtain long term disability in a form similar to what SS provides. I am not aware of any policies that will pay past an age of 65 (SS won't either, but you can start recieving equivalent SS retirement benefits at 65). Remember that since you are disabled, you won't be able to contribute to that retirement account anymore, so this is an important difference to note. If you are and have always been healthy, you should be able to obtain disability insurance with coverage through age 65 for 1000/year (to emphasize the issue, I cannot obtain any disability insurance because of a health problem I had a few years ago).

SS uses less than 3% of the 15% for disability benefits. Disability and retirement funds can be discussed seperately. IF everyone put the remaining 12% into a something like a thrift savings plan, future generations would be far better off than the current generation.

Can you back up your numbers with something concrete? I think not.

(hint: throwing out statistics while misrepresenting the amount contributed to SS is a good indicator that you are willing to lie to try and make a point)

linkage

Total SSA budget is 586B. Disability is only 90B. That puts it about 2.25% of the 15% collected via payroll taxes.


Feel free to retract calling me a liar.

I already posted the real numbers. It's the 15% bit that's off...

Payroll tax is about 15%. Disability consumes about 2.25% of that 15% or less than 1/5 of the total SS taxes. Nothing was misrepresented.

OK, I appoligize. Perhaps you simply misunderstood.
SS is 12.4%, another 2.9% is for Medicare

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
More detailed numbers: SS statistical snapshot

Quick summary of percent of benefits paid:
Old age insurance: 69%
Survivors insurance: 14%
Disability insusrance 17%

this is after administrative costs close to 1%

(note that some of the old age insurance is converted disability, since the program pays disability insurance to the age of 65 and then changes payments to old age insurance for disability recipients older then 65)

Correction to the above. The percentages that I listed were based on number of beneficiaries.

In dollars paid:
Old age insurance: 32436 million (72%)
Survivors insurance: 5721 million (13%)
Disability insusrance 6714 million (15%)

I am glad you agree I was not misrepresenting the data or flat out lying about it to make a point.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
If you could opt out of social security starting tomorrow, would you do it? This means that you would cease having to pay 7% and your employer wouldn't have to pay anything either. But to go along with that you would only receive benefits up to the point that you already paid in.

State your age as well as your answer.

Yes, SS is a ponzi scheme.

 

[Orsorum]

Without a doubt. I'd have the same amount automatically deducted anyway and deposited into a tax shelter (until I hit my limit and/or I become ineligible) and the remainder into a taxable brokerage account. This is a no brainer.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: RichardE
No

21years of age, 32k/year

You don't even live here, how can you even answer?

And yes, I would opt out in a heartbeat. I can put that money to better use than letting the government sit on it for 50 years.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Nope. I get free healthcare, and if anything unpredictable should happen i get cared for as much as i will ever need. Without having to pay for it.
Same with my parents, and everyone else.

[edit]

Yeah, i'm not american.

And we get the same quality of healthcare as you do, and we pay less then half of what you do.

Who CARES? You act like healthcare is the most important thing in the world. Most people get their healthcare through their company, which is "free." Oh, and your healthcare isn't free. I have a pet peeve about people who call government services "free."

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Nope. I get free healthcare, and if anything unpredictable should happen i get cared for as much as i will ever need. Without having to pay for it.
Same with my parents, and everyone else.

[edit]

Yeah, i'm not american.

And we get the same quality of healthcare as you do, and we pay less then half of what you do.

Who CARES? You act like healthcare is the most important thing in the world. Most people get their healthcare through their company, which is "free." Oh, and your healthcare isn't free. I have a pet peeve about people who call government services "free."

We all know that the rich only get that way because they exploit other, less fortunate people. Not only that, because they're rich, they deserve no say in the political process (lest they be accused of *gasp* influencing their politicians), nor is their property really "their" property.

Didn't you get the memo?

Those who sacrifice nothing for the services they receive from government tend to see no evil in expanding their benefits even further. It's easy to be generous with other peoples' money.