Social Security

[yobnoc 142]

I read a report today that pretty much said what we thirty-somethings plus or minus 10 years already know: that Social Security won't be around in any meaningful way by the time we get old enough to claim it.  I'm still trying to figure out why the hell this program isn't voluntary.  The administrative costs of SS versus the benefit payout makes it seem more like a government mandated Ponzi scheme than a "security blanket."

I'm of the stance that we should make the program completely voluntary.  If you want to receive SS benefits, then you must contribute for the entirety of your working years.  If you'd rather have that money go toward private investments in your own 401(k)/Roth, then that should be a separate option.  Give the power back to the people.

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I read a report today that pretty much said what we thirty-somethings plus or minus 10 years already know: that Social Security won't be around in any meaningful way by the time we get old enough to claim it.  I'm still trying to figure out why the hell this program isn't voluntary.

Because by the time it finally collapses, most of today's politicians will be out of office.

[yobnoc 142]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Because by the time it finally collapses, most of today's politicians will be out of office.

I don't disagree, but even the younger candidates are looking at SS as something that needs "saving."

You can still "save" it by making the program voluntary, albeit at the expense of several...(thousand? I don't know)...federal jobs in SS admin.  But that does the program a favor too.  Sure, less people will be in the program, but with less administrative costs and fewer beneficiaries (those who opt out would not be eligible for benefits under any circumstances i.e. disability), I think it would cause the program to be even more solvent going forward, and maybe even increase the benefit amount for the beneficiaries.  I fully understand that means that if I decided to opt out (and reclaim all the money I've ever paid into SS in a lump-sum-thank-you-very-much), and I get hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd be ineligible for SS disability.  That doesn't phase me.  The libertarian part of me says that is the cost of the freedom to choose.  I'd have nobody to blame but myself.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

4 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I'd have nobody to blame but myself.

Does that include killing yourself when you can't afford to live or will you expect society to pay for you if you cannot afford to live and are unable to work?

I don't understand this desire to not provide a basic safety net to your society.

[yobnoc 142]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Does that include killing yourself when you can't afford to live or will you expect society to pay for you if you cannot afford to live and are unable to work?

I don't understand this desire to not provide a basic safety net to your society.

That's a nanny-state argument: "It's for your own good."

If people choose to be part of the program, then great for them!  I just feel like I can manage my money better than the government can in this instance. 

And, since you went all morose on us here: I may find it preferable to end my own life if I found myself in that situation.  Which is why I'm also completely supportive of "death with dignity" laws.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

If people choose to be part of the program, then great for them!  I just feel like I can manage my money better than the government can in this instance. 

And if you don't. If you end up broke, with no income and an inability to work at 70 year old. Then what?

This has nothing to do with nanny state, but providing a minimum to people who otherwise would not have anything. You can call it morose all you want. I think it is rather morose to think only about what is best for you and have no regard for others.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

4 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Which is why I'm also completely supportive of "death with dignity" laws.

And when you are broke, who is going to pay for that?

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

And if you don't. If you end up broke, with no income and an inability to work at 70 year old. Then what?

This has nothing to do with nanny state, but providing a minimum to people who otherwise would not have anything. You can call it morose all you want. I think it is rather morose to think only about what is best for you and have no regard for others.

I think you may have missed the part where I said that it should be a choice.  Now, I haven't crunched the numbers on this (I think it would be a difficult task and I haven't found myself with enough time to do so), but I'm completely in favor of a program that people can *choose* to pay into for a social security safety net.  My inclination is that this would result in overall better benefits for those who do choose to invest in the program.  If I'm 70 and still needing to work, then I've done it all wrong.  I plan on retiring at 55, and I'd be able to probably do it sooner if I was able to invest my money the way I see fit rather than put it into a program that I most likely won't live long enough to see the benefits from. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I think you may have missed the part where I said that it should be a choice.  Now, I haven't crunched the numbers on this (I think it would be a difficult task and I haven't found myself with enough time to do so), but I'm completely in favor of a program that people can *choose* to pay into for a social security safety net.  My inclination is that this would result in overall better benefits for those who do choose to invest in the program.  If I'm 70 and still needing to work, then I've done it all wrong.  I plan on retiring at 55, and I'd be able to probably do it sooner if I was able to invest my money the way I see fit rather than put it into a program that I most likely won't live long enough to see the benefits from. 

That doesn't answer the question.

You choose not to participate, then you find yourself destitute and unable to work at 70. Now what?

[yobnoc 142]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And when you are broke, who is going to pay for that?

Again, your argument hinges on the specter of my going broke and destitute.  I have more faith in my own money management skills than those of our government.  Since we're dealing with "what if's": what if changing SS to a voluntary program causes it to be a better program for those who choose to utilize it?  Isn't that a good thing overall?  Land of the free and all that?

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

That doesn't answer the question.

You choose not to participate, then you find yourself destitute and unable to work at 70. Now what?

Again, I've already answered that question.  Besides, it's of no consequence to you.  Your argument against my position is a bunch of "What if's" that I've already addressed. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 minute ago, yobnoc said:

Again, your argument hinges on the specter of my going broke and destitute.  I have more faith in my own money management skills than those of our government.  Since we're dealing with "what if's": what if changing SS to a voluntary program causes it to be a better program for those who choose to utilize it?  Isn't that a good thing overall?  Land of the free and all that?

Because people will end up in that situation. I am sure you are wayyyyyyy to smart to let anything unforeseen happen. However, what is your proposal to deal with these situations for the people who will find themselves in?

Or do you really only care about yourself?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Just now, yobnoc said:

Again, I've already answered that question.  Besides, it's of no consequence to you.  Your argument against my position is a bunch of "What if's" that I've already addressed. 

You haven't. Other than to state you are too smart to let that happen.

So, I guess I have my answer to the second part, you do indeed only care about your own situation.

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

You haven't. Other than to state you are too smart to let that happen.

So, I guess I have my answer to the second part, you do indeed only care about your own situation.

I haven't said that I'm too smart.  I've said that it's a risk I'm willing to take.  Call it a gamble, if you will.  I believe it is much more likely that I won't need to draw early benefits than that I will.  Like, astronomically more probable that I won't need to. 

I've addressed that I would want to make sure that those who still want to be invested into the program can do so, and hopefully expect better benefits and solvency.

[SethInMI 145]

The problem isn't "you" specifically, but other people who will decide to "live for today" and opt-out, then get to age 70 and have nothing. Now society can say tough shit, but society doesn't. If a person of retirement age runs out of money, they can still get medicaid, which is covered by the rest of us.

So society needs a mandatory safety net, because society has decided we won't let old people who are broke starve to death and die.

 

[yobnoc 142]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Because people will end up in that situation. I am sure you are wayyyyyyy to smart to let anything unforeseen happen. However, what is your proposal to deal with these situations for the people who will find themselves in?

Or do you really only care about yourself?

I missed this one.  You've got some rapid-fire skills here with typing!  Let me be clear: I am more confident in my ability to manage my money than the government's ability to do the same.  This is not to claim that I'm the smartest man alive.  I don't think that's the case at all, and my wife would second that.  I believe in personal responsibility.  I want those who want social security to have it, and to have a better version of it than what's promised today.  I don't have to have a plan to deal with other people who make their own personal choice to remove themselves from the pool.  That's their own decision.  I can only make decisions for myself. 

[yobnoc 142]

4 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

The problem isn't "you" specifically, but other people who will decide to "live for today" and opt-out, then get to age 70 and have nothing. Now society can say tough shit, but society doesn't. If a person of retirement age runs out of money, they can still get medicaid, which is covered by the rest of us.

So society needs a mandatory safety net, because society has decided we won't let old people who are broke starve to death and die.

 

Right!  Exactly the problem, Seth!  It is not the job of government to be my nanny, or yours, or anyone else's.  I say tough shit.  Say it with me: Personal Responsibility.  If you choose to opt out, then you by default choose to take that gamble. 

I'm starting to see parallels between this conversation and the tactics that are used to bully people into union dues.  I work in a union shop, and that's a whole different story, but it's another money-making corporation scaring people into paying exorbitant dues for very little in return.

[ryoder 1,384]

5 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Let me be clear: I am more confident in my ability to manage my money than the government's ability to do the same.  This is not to claim that I'm the smartest man alive.  I don't think that's the case at all, and my wife would second that.  I believe in personal responsibility.  I want those who want social security to have it, and to have a better version of it than what's promised today.  I don't have to have a plan to deal with other people who make their own personal choice to remove themselves from the pool.  That's their own decision.  I can only make decisions for myself. 

All it takes is a medical crisis (e.g. cancer), and either being uninsured, or having coverage denied by insurance, and you can go bankrupt.

[yobnoc 142]

4 minutes ago, ryoder said:

All it takes is a medical crisis (e.g. cancer), and either being uninsured, or having coverage denied by insurance, and you can go bankrupt.

Yep.  Fully understand that.

[SethInMI 145]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

Yep.  Fully understand that.

I am not sure you fully do. Personally, I would be fine financially if SS disappeared suddenly. But I have friends and family that would not be ok. Would I say "tough shit" to people I care deeply about and let them die, even if they were responsible for their own problems? If you can do that to everyone you know, I pity you.

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

Right!  Exactly the problem, Seth!  It is not the job of government to be my nanny, or yours, or anyone else's.  I say tough shit.  Say it with me: Personal Responsibility.  If you choose to opt out, then you by default choose to take that gamble. 

I'm starting to see parallels between this conversation and the tactics that are used to bully people into union dues.  I work in a union shop, and that's a whole different story, but it's another money-making corporation scaring people into paying exorbitant dues for very little in return.

Until you’ve been in that situation I don’t believe anyone can really say what they’d do when they’re broke, homeless and can’t afford medication.

Its dead easy to say ‘I’d suck it up’ or ‘I wouldn’t be in that situation’ when you’re sitting at home drinking Chablis, but then everyone thinks they’re mentally and physically tougher and smarter than they actually are. 

Given the choice as you suggest EVERYONE would think they’re smart enough not to end up in that situation, just as you do. There are a bunch of studies out there that show that people SUCK at voluntary saving so Dekker’s situation WILL happen which makes his question of ‘then what’ very valid, and something you haven’t answered.

 

What do you do when large % of your elderly population are starving or can’t afford to heat their homes in winter?

 

 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

Again, your argument hinges on the specter of my going broke and destitute.

Some people will do just that; not everyone plans as you do.

So what's the answer there?  Let them die?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

Some people will do just that; not everyone plans as you do.

So what's the answer there?  Let them die?

Some of the people who 'plan as he does' will also fail at those plans.

So, what should those who chose to opt out of SS do if (when) their investment plan collapses? 

 

Starve to death? Freeze to death? 

 

The 'nanny state' has proven to be necessary. 
Too many people are too stupid, shortsighted, optimistic, unlucky, ignorant, or a zillion other things that would result in them deciding to opt out of SS, and then ending up needing it.

 

In a (not terribly surprising) parallel, this is the same reason that Obama care had the requirement to have health care. 

[jclalor 12]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I think you may have missed the part where I said that it should be a choice.  Now, I haven't crunched the numbers on this (I think it would be a difficult task and I haven't found myself with enough time to do so), but I'm completely in favor of a program that people can *choose* to pay into for a social security safety net.  My inclination is that this would result in overall better benefits for those who do choose to invest in the program.  If I'm 70 and still needing to work, then I've done it all wrong.  I plan on retiring at 55, and I'd be able to probably do it sooner if I was able to invest my money the way I see fit rather than put it into a program that I most likely won't live long enough to see the benefits from. 

You do realize that you could receive benefits at any time due to serious injury or illness? You don’t necessarily have to wait until retirement to benefit.

[billvon 2,400]

25 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Starve to death? Freeze to death? 

Well, the libertarian approach would be something like "I certainly hope they saved, but if they didn't, their fate is their own fault."  Maybe that would work - but we don't seem that cold blooded as a society (and that's probably a good thing, even if it means that we often spend more than we should.)