Whats with the Social Security farce these days?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dirtboy

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,745
1
81
Who cares if SS won't be around in its current form 5-10 years from now. We have SS and we'll probably always have it. The only difference will be the age at which we will get it. If I live long enough to see a check before age 70, I will be shocked.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Social programs are socialism.
Basicly, it's communism."


That's like saying insurance is like communism.

Lots of things that are "socialist" by your definition work fine, fire departments for example.

There is no one solution for every human endeavor, that includes capitalism.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
"Social programs are socialism.
Basicly, it's communism."

That's like saying insurance is like communism.
Once again, it is not, NOT, NOT like insurance. Read my post above and see how the United States Supreme Court has ruled emphatically that Social Security is not insurance, those who pay into SS possess no rights or claims whatsoever to monies paid into SS, and there is NO contractural obligation to ever be paid SS benefits. Feel free to believe in whatever you like, but please do not continue trying to influence others into believing SS is anything more than it is, a Ponzi scheme.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Uh, do you guys get your garbage picked up by garbage men? Do you have police officers in your neighborhood? Do you or did you or do any of your relatives serve in the miliary?

Etc., ad nauseam.

About 10 times a year we must re-visit this issue. Why?

Social security is not going to disappear any time soon.

Dredging up these old canards about communism is not helping your cause either because you are obviously unable to discriminate between socialism and communism.

-Robert

 

MonkeyK

Golden Member
May 27, 2001
1,396
8
81
Originally posted by: charrison
Include the crash that caused the great depression and the stock market still returns 12% of year on average.

Only let people invest in bonds, you would still get a 6% annual return.

limit it only to money markets and people would still get a 3% return.

Limit them to social security and they might get a 1% return.

And if your a black, chances are you will die before reaching retirement age.

Social security is currently broke.

Everyone talks about how good the market performs over time. When you depend on the the markets performance for you current income, you don;t have time.
The problem with privitization is that people need to money in down times too. Withdrawing money in down times requires a high degree of financial savvy.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
If my ss dollars ended up supporting some "feel good" social spending... :|

Welcome to reality busmaster11 - it's been going on for years.

CkG
My opinion exactly get rid of regressive ss taxes, and pay for everything with income taxes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
SS isn't broke, Charrison, it currently supplies a surplus to the budget. It's projected to be broke in 2041, or sooner if the govt welches on the money borrowed from the trusts... That's w/o any changes. It's more than disingenuous to make claims to the contrary...

And, as usual, you really need to link some source regarding the rate of return of the market...

If the Bushies propose these stock fund accounts, I rather suspect they'll be a lot like 401K and 457 accounts, where investors are separated from direct control of their money by a variety of middlemen- mutual funds, which as derivatives are very susceptible to changes in the market. Think the numbers from the market were bad in 2002? Should have seen the numbers from most mutuals.. People who retired early on the strength of their mutuals had to go back to work, and others' hopes for early retirement washed up dead on the beach outside the fund managers' summer homes...

Anybody trying to move their funds to safer harbors found the lines busy, websites bollixed, advisers unavailable...

And the employee stock option plans were similarly rigged. As a lifelong Lucent Employee, my sister had a nice nestegg in Lucent stock. I encouraged her to diversify, naturally, but she didn't. When Lucent stock went into freefall, the employees were locked out of trading while the execs sold short, made a bundle... good thing she wasn't depending on that for groceries, because she'd have starved...

The stock market is for money you can afford to lose. The vast majority of workers can't afford to lose their retirement accounts, particularly given the walmartization of the economy.

Socialism? Of course. The whole New Deal was and is a mild form of socialism, and has carried us through the most broad based period of general prosperity in our history. With the ascendancy of contagious greed, and attempts from the far right to destroy such programs, we're seeing a redistribution of wealth unprecedented in our history- a redistribution into the hands of a very few, the financial elite. Unrestrained Capitalism will do that, and will ultimately result in a wealth and income distribution common in the third world... Don't believe me? Vote Republican, find out down the road...

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The stock market is for money you can afford to lose. The vast majority of workers can't afford to lose their retirement accounts, particularly given the walmartization of the economy.
As opposed to Social Security accounts, which don't really even exist? Heaven forbid we let the people actually have control over their own money, else statists wouldn't have Social Security to hold over the elderlys' heads to extort their votes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
As we've seen, glenn1, seniors have a fair amount of political clout, so it's a tossup as to who's extorting who over votes... althought the pandering in the drug benefit for seniors somewhere down the road is obvious, and obscene, considering it mostly benefits senior drug company executives...

Seniors have more leverage in the political arena than over their fund managers and stockbrokers- can't exactly vote the rascals out of their fifth avenue brownstones and summer homes in the Hamptons.....
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: charrison
Include the crash that caused the great depression and the stock market still returns 12% of year on average.

Only let people invest in bonds, you would still get a 6% annual return.

limit it only to money markets and people would still get a 3% return.

Limit them to social security and they might get a 1% return.

And if your a black, chances are you will die before reaching retirement age.

Social security is currently broke.

Everyone talks about how good the market performs over time. When you depend on the the markets performance for you current income, you don;t have time.
The problem with privitization is that people need to money in down times too. Withdrawing money in down times requires a high degree of financial savvy.
That is an easy fix. Automatically limit the private accounts.

Those under 30 can have up 75% stock
Those under 50 can have up to 50% stock
those under 65 can have up to 25 stock


This is really not a difficult problem to solve.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
For all you that dont like social security why not just get a job for a corporation that does not have anything to do with the FICA. That way you do not even have to be in the system. Their are a lot of corporations in the US that you can work for and not be in the SS system, if you are to stupid to find them then you get what you deserve.

Bleep
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Originally posted by: charrison
Include the crash that caused the great depression and the stock market still returns 12% of year on average.

Only let people invest in bonds, you would still get a 6% annual return.

limit it only to money markets and people would still get a 3% return.

Limit them to social security and they might get a 1% return.

And if your a black, chances are you will die before reaching retirement age.

Social security is currently broke.

Everyone talks about how good the market performs over time. When you depend on the the markets performance for you current income, you don;t have time.
The problem with privitization is that people need to money in down times too. Withdrawing money in down times requires a high degree of financial savvy.
That is an easy fix. Automatically limit the private accounts.

Those under 30 can have up 75% stock
Those under 50 can have up to 50% stock
those under 65 can have up to 25 stock


This is really not a difficult problem to solve.
The problem I have with all this "private accounts" and such is that it legitemizes people's perception that this is a retirement program. SS isn't a retirement fund so I don't think I want the gov't to be involved in managing my retirement situation - If I want to invest and save for retirement then I will do so - I don't need to the gov't to FORCE me to do so against my will. But then again - I'd take "some" control rather than none as it currently is. But IMO the whole thing is BS.

CkG
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Safe? from what? from who? We spend more on the military than the next five nations combined, and it's not like either the Canadians or the Mexicans intend to invade anytime real soon...

Protect our interests? The House of Saud? they've got more danger from within than without... Iraq? what an empty shell of a threat that turned out to be... Taiwan? do a 180 policy reversal, make some kind of quixotic stand in China's backyard? Korea? Kim is a paper tiger, scared stiff of the US, and won't be attacking anybody... NMD? Can you spell Pork?

Terrar? Conventional forces are useless against terrorists, unless you intend to invade their host country- nobody will knowingly host Al Qaeda, not anymore...

"Actually it appears it is the dems that want to keep the status quo with SS. Bush wants to propose private accounts for ss so the goverment cant raid those funds. "

Not exactly- it's so their stockbroker and market speculator buddies can raid them, instead. No guarantees from the market, just that good ol' blue sky...
the more we spend on the military the more likely things will stay this way (nobody wanting/willing to attack us). the less we spend the more suceptable (sp?) we become. id rather the government spend money to secure our borders and protect our national interests than to fund government handouts, basically redistributing wealth EARNED by others.

or maybe you'd prefer a foreign policy like clintons - that is to give our nuclear secrets freely to china, which has a standing army of what 5 million?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Typical uber-right indoctrination there, josphII, and a nice diversion from the facts at hand. SS provides a surplus to the govt annually, above and beyond the benefits disbursed, so it's not exactly a giveaway. Nobody's getting a handout, the whole thing is basically the world's largest retirement and disability group insurance policy.

As for the earned aspects of great wealth, you're referencing pure unadulterated hogwash. Hard work won't get you anywhere past comfortable upper middle class- after that, it takes luck, ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit the efforts of others to get to the status of financial elite... How hard do you suppose the Walton heirs have worked for their place in the top ten wealthiest Americans? Yeh, their father worked damned hard, and was more than willing to exploit others, and was a little lucky, too... so they deserve what they have, in every sense of the word, right?

Capitalism is also a wealth redistribution scheme- to concentrate the rewards of the hard work of many into the hands of a few...

The source of our prosperity has been the ability to make sure that some of the wealth gets spread around- call it what you want, but the New Deal has served us well, balancing the needs of the many against the desires of the few...

Not that it matters to somebody captivated by the vitriol of the far right, who's convinced that their own problems are because of the government, and the welfare queens, and taxes, and rules and regulations. And you're convinced, obviously, that America's "enemies" are just waiting for an opening, a chance to strike, and that tinpot pissants like the DPRK are a real threat... Malarkey.

If nothing else, the events of 9/11 should have convinced us that a big military can't cover all the bases. And, if nothing else, the whole Iraqi blunder should convince us that having a huge military just means that some damned fools will have to use it, even if doing so breaks us financially and morally.

Attempts to destroy SS may just reveal the greed and corruption of the far right propagandists and their financial backers, which would be a good thing. Then we can move on to making sure SS or something like it will still be there for the next several generations. It's as American as Mom and apple pie, and as practical as as an old fashioned community barn-raising... You know, working together for the common good, something lost in the rhetoric of selfishness and greed so prevalent today...

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
SS provides a surplus to the govt annually, above and beyond the benefits disbursed, so it's not exactly a giveaway. Nobody's getting a handout, the whole thing is basically the world's largest retirement and disability group insurance policy.
Typical ultra-left indoctrination there Jhhnn.:p Keep believing it all though - someday you might understand why SS is a failed(failing) scheme.

And you can quit with the whole "collective" BS - SS doesn't have anything to do with the "common good" - it takes away from all who work (except a few cases) and gives to those who don't. The "those" are using it as a way of life - not a safety net. SS was never meant to be sustained livable income....but with the entitlement attitude that has run wild here in the US - I'm not surprised at all by your comments or your perception of SS as "insurance":p. SS is NOT practical and will fail under the weight of the BBs. You can rant all you want about "selfishness" but I think you are barking up the wrong tree - there aren't any coons here - you might want to check the tree labeled AARP though;)

CkG
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: glenn1
"Social programs are socialism.
Basicly, it's communism."

That's like saying insurance is like communism.
Once again, it is not, NOT, NOT like insurance. Read my post above and see how the United States Supreme Court has ruled emphatically that Social Security is not insurance, those who pay into SS possess no rights or claims whatsoever to monies paid into SS, and there is NO contractural obligation to ever be paid SS benefits. Feel free to believe in whatever you like, but please do not continue trying to influence others into believing SS is anything more than it is, a Ponzi scheme.

Hey, it's obvious you hate Social Security, but that doesn't make you right.

First of all I did not say Social Security is insurance.

Secondly there are many forms of insurance where a person does not have rights or claims to moneys paid in.

Thirdly- in cases where a person does have rights to moneys paid into an insurance policy, there is no guarantee that you will be able to get it except for your faith in the company backed up be government regulation and the government court system; both of which I assume you're opposed to paying taxes to support.

Fourthly- in function, Social Security is essentially a mandatory pension and long term disability program, mandatory because the vast majority of people choose not to buy these things on their own, to the detriment of themselves and society.

The direct cost to society of not having Social Security are far greater than having it with the added bonus that a great many people will suffer needlessly.

Why ? Because the only real alternative to Social Security is that families have to provide the care and financing for all the people who won't have pensions and/or disability insurance. In our current society of 2 worker households there isn't anybody who can do this unless somebody stops working. This leads to lower productivity and a smaller supply of labor, increasing labor costs.

You may think it's a great idea to make old and disabled people suffer, so you don't have to pay SS taxes, but it would be a financial and societal disaster.


 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"Typical ultra-left indoctrination there Jhhnn. Keep believing it all though - someday you might understand why SS is a failed(failing) scheme."


You say Social Security is ultra-left, but I don't hear many politicians who advocate your policy that the sick, the old, and the young, should just die if they aren't clever enough or lucky enough to be able to buy their own food and shelter.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Funny, CkG, that it would officially be called insurance... Old-age and survivors disability insurance- OASDI. The vast majority of recipients paid into the fund their entire working lives- some are disabled, some are their aged widows or widows with underage children. I recognize that facts often interfere with polemics, but try these out, anyway-

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/FACTS/factsheet.html

As is common, you are apparently confusing the program with another-

http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/

These funds come from general tax revenues, rather than the SS trusts.

They often overlap, with each other and various veterans' programs, but the subject at hand is OASDI...

SS doesn't have anything to do with the "common good" - it takes away from all who work (except a few cases) and gives to those who don't.
If you'll consult the .pdf chart in the first link, you'll notice that the vast majority paid into the fund their entire working lives, some more than 40 years, and were provided with disability and survivors' (life insurance) benefits the entire time... many SS recipients also work, whether they're survivors or merely aged... many don't work anymore, but you definitely can't draw SS if neither you nor your deceased spouse never worked...

using it as a way of life - not a safety net. SS was never meant to be sustained livable income.
Unfortunately, those who legitimately receive SS disability benefits need it as a basis for survival. Like you, I suspect that some may be undeserving, but that small % in no way discredits the entire program. And for those who are of retirement age, it definitely should pay for the basics of life... otherwise, the entire thing would be a fraud.

I realize the necessity of making changes to the system- in terms of SS, I'm definitely conservative, as are most people, we want it to survive and provide the same kind of benefits in the future that my parents and grandparents received, that I and the rest of the boomers actually paid for. There are probably a variety of ways to accomplish that task, but trusting those who hate it to improve and sustain it is stupidity of the lowest order...

As far as the selfishmess and greed are concerned, I'm at the right tree. I see the inheritance of great wealth and rank exploitation of honest work redefined as income earned within this forum and others on a regular basis, also the notion that taxes, unions and government are basically the root of all evil held up high. hogwash.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Has anyone ever put to the powers that be, a government insured account? Kinda like FDIC? That way a person might invest a portion of his SS tax into ...say bonds or "safe" investments. This way it would be possible to lessen the burden to the taxpayer, and allow some control over your own future.

Just a thought.

Mark
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Originally posted by: maluckey
Has anyone ever put to the powers that be, a government insured account? Kinda like FDIC? That way a person might invest a portion of his SS tax into ...say bonds or "safe" investments. This way it would be possible to lessen the burden to the taxpayer, and allow some control over your own future.

Just a thought.

Mark
Everybody is perfectly free to do that now, just not with the part of their income that goes to Social Security. As a group our Social Security funds are already invested in government bonds.

The issue is that there are people who believe in a kind of social Darwinism, usually because they believe they are part of the group that will survive, who advocate a system where if a person isn't smart enough to buy disability insurance for example, that it's just tough and they should die off. Same thing if people get old without enough savings, too bad, goodbye.

The only real motivation fo this isn't because this system would work better for society, but greed. They believe in a winner take all world where everybody is entitled to as much as they can get, it doesn't really matter how you get it, once you get it it's yours and they'll provide for everything they need themselves, thank you, leave us alone.

Of course this is a huge fallacy, nobody is rich enough to provide everything they need themselves, they aren't going to provide their own fire dept, their own military, their own prisons, no, they think it's fine for everybody to pay for these things they benefit from, in fact they benefit more than others because they have more to lose.

But they don't see how it's helping them if some old lady doesn't freeze to death, or somebody gets MS and can't work, so they would like to keep the money that helps these people, and would help them too if it happened to them, because they think they are one of the winners and don't need it.

So they want to keep that money and do what they want with it.
 

josphII

Banned
Nov 24, 2001
1,490
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Typical uber-right indoctrination there, josphII, and a nice diversion from the facts at hand. SS provides a surplus to the govt annually, above and beyond the benefits disbursed, so it's not exactly a giveaway. Nobody's getting a handout, the whole thing is basically the world's largest retirement and disability group insurance policy.
firstly i never called ss a handout. i do believe in privitization of ss though. i fail to see the logic behind the government investing ppls' money for them. it is neither right, nor logical.

As for the earned aspects of great wealth, you're referencing pure unadulterated hogwash. Hard work won't get you anywhere past comfortable upper middle class- after that, it takes luck, ruthlessness and a willingness to exploit the efforts of others to get to the status of financial elite... How hard do you suppose the Walton heirs have worked for their place in the top ten wealthiest Americans? Yeh, their father worked damned hard, and was more than willing to exploit others, and was a little lucky, too... so they deserve what they have, in every sense of the word, right?

Capitalism is also a wealth redistribution scheme- to concentrate the rewards of the hard work of many into the hands of a few...
hard work wont get you past middle class? im curious as to how you define 'middle class.' but this is nothing more than typical libral b.s. the fact of the matter is the harder and smarter you work the more success you will find. sure you might get lucky and have a large inheritence waiting for you, but why the bitterness towards these lucky ppl? how about you do whatever it takes to achieve the same success that you are so bitter about and make it so your heirs are born lucky. what you need to realize is you are actually not bitter towards these lucky few, you are just jealous. it all comes down to librals find it easier to complain about what they dont have and who has it, rather than actually doing something about it.

The source of our prosperity has been the ability to make sure that some of the wealth gets spread around- call it what you want, but the New Deal has served us well, balancing the needs of the many against the desires of the few...
you see i always attributed americas success to the hardworking men and women of this country, not the government.

Not that it matters to somebody captivated by the vitriol of the far right, who's convinced that their own problems are because of the government, and the welfare queens, and taxes, and rules and regulations. And you're convinced, obviously, that America's "enemies" are just waiting for an opening, a chance to strike, and that tinpot pissants like the DPRK are a real threat... Malarkey.
that makes no sense. conservatives believe ones own failures are their own problems, not the result of somebody holding them back. excuses are left for the librals.

If nothing else, the events of 9/11 should have convinced us that a big military can't cover all the bases. And, if nothing else, the whole Iraqi blunder should convince us that having a huge military just means that some damned fools will have to use it, even if doing so breaks us financially and morally.
no what it convinced us of is that a feel-good foreign policy leaves us vulnerable. when confronted w/ a threat we must deal w/ it, not coddle it.

Attempts to destroy SS may just reveal the greed and corruption of the far right propagandists and their financial backers, which would be a good thing. Then we can move on to making sure SS or something like it will still be there for the next several generations. It's as American as Mom and apple pie, and as practical as as an old fashioned community barn-raising... You know, working together for the common good, something lost in the rhetoric of selfishness and greed so prevalent today...
and the democratic plan to save ss is.....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny, CkG, that it would officially be called insurance... Old-age and survivors disability insurance- OASDI. The vast majority of recipients paid into the fund their entire working lives- some are disabled, some are their aged widows or widows with underage children. I recognize that facts often interfere with polemics, but try these out, anyway-

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/FACTS/factsheet.html

As is common, you are apparently confusing the program with another-

http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/

These funds come from general tax revenues, rather than the SS trusts.

They often overlap, with each other and various veterans' programs, but the subject at hand is OASDI...

SS doesn't have anything to do with the "common good" - it takes away from all who work (except a few cases) and gives to those who don't.
If you'll consult the .pdf chart in the first link, you'll notice that the vast majority paid into the fund their entire working lives, some more than 40 years, and were provided with disability and survivors' (life insurance) benefits the entire time... many SS recipients also work, whether they're survivors or merely aged... many don't work anymore, but you definitely can't draw SS if neither you nor your deceased spouse never worked...

using it as a way of life - not a safety net. SS was never meant to be sustained livable income.
Unfortunately, those who legitimately receive SS disability benefits need it as a basis for survival. Like you, I suspect that some may be undeserving, but that small % in no way discredits the entire program. And for those who are of retirement age, it definitely should pay for the basics of life... otherwise, the entire thing would be a fraud.

I realize the necessity of making changes to the system- in terms of SS, I'm definitely conservative, as are most people, we want it to survive and provide the same kind of benefits in the future that my parents and grandparents received, that I and the rest of the boomers actually paid for. There are probably a variety of ways to accomplish that task, but trusting those who hate it to improve and sustain it is stupidity of the lowest order...

As far as the selfishmess and greed are concerned, I'm at the right tree. I see the inheritance of great wealth and rank exploitation of honest work redefined as income earned within this forum and others on a regular basis, also the notion that taxes, unions and government are basically the root of all evil held up high. hogwash.
Supplemental Security Income is basically welfare for low/no income older folks which doesn't come from SS funds so I don't know why you felt the need to bring it up:p
No - I'm not confusing anything - YOU think I said more than I did;) I know that what people commonly refer to as SS is mostly OASDI - my comment was on the fact that you view it as "insurance" which is what socialists like to keep trying to say it acts as, but in reality it is a failing scheme to redistribute wealth(money/benefits) from the working to the non-working.
Yes SS runs a surplus currently but it won't for long especially if we don't reform the system and change the way people view SS.
SS was and is a SAFETY NET - NOT A RETIREMENT PLAN. I hear people constantly talking about how they only have to work X more years and then they can retire and collect SS. That attitude disgusts me - as I don't think the gov't should be in the "retirement fund" business especially when it is basically FORCED.

SS needs to be changed - it needs to be gutted and people need to be educated that it ISN'T a retirement plan and was never intended to be one. Will it suck for old people? maybe - but I'd rather see it happen NOW instead of later when the "program" sucks the life out of the gov't. The "me" generation needs to wake up and realize that they will cause the biggest budget problem we have ever seen unless they act NOW to change things.

My vote is to scrap the whole thing and make one "welfare" system(means tested) that provides the truely needy what they need and prevents people from relying on the gov't for their retirement(ala SS).

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY