Social Security

[yobnoc 142]

42 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?

I think that the concept is eluding some people here.  I'm not talking about abolishing social security.  Quite the opposite; I want all the people who want to pour their money into SS to have the freedom to do so.  I just don't see it as a good return on investment.  And I don't see it as cold-hearted at all to look someone in the face and tell them to live with their decisions.  Just as I would look at myself in the mirror and say the same if I were to find that I miscalculated my decision.  It's like the guy wheeling around an oxygen tank still suckin down cigarettes.  I don't feel for them in the least. 

I keep being told I'm not answering the question.  I think it's evident that you just don't like my answer, or you don't believe me.  I can do my current job if I were a T6 complete.  If I were to be worse off than that, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to keep on keepin on anyway. 

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, jclalor said:

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.

Yes, as I've stated earlier in the thread, I do understand that. 

[yoink 321]

44 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I think that the concept is eluding some people here.  I want all the people who want to pour their money into SS to have the freedom to do so.  

I think the concept is eluding you, to be honest.

Yes, freedom is great. BUT most people simply don’t act the way you would. In fact they’d act in the most detrimental way possible. They’d think they would make better financial decisions than they actually would, and then they end up fucked.

THAT’S what society has to plan for - the worst case scenario, not the best.

 

From the stats I’ve seen only between 15 and 20% of us are psychologically ‘natural savers’. My wife is, for example. I’m certainly not. Fortunately I’m old enough now to realize when I suck at something...

And so I ask again, given that most people assume they are smarter than they actually are, and given that only 20% of people would actually SAVE money if not forced to do so, how does society act when 80% of its retirees are broke and starving? 

 

This is a good example of an idea that’s great in theory but would be horrible in practice because, well, people.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by yoink

[jakee 1,255]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I think that the concept is eluding some people here.  I'm not talking about abolishing social security.  Quite the opposite; I want all the people who want to pour their money into SS to have the freedom to do so. 

Right, you do get that the people most likely to need SS are those who don't have much money to pour in?

 

If you think it's failing now, what happens when you let all the high earners leave the contributing pool?

[airdvr 197]

Let's assume we could end SS.  How would you phase it out?  You can't take it from the people that are already receiving it.  I'm 60 years old and have been having money taken from my checks all my life specifically for this program.  

Actually, I think the next Democrat Presidential Candidate should suggest ending SS...maybe Bernie...lol

 

[normiss 622]

13 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. 

To the bottom earners, this will never be a choice. Even small families making a decent earning struggle to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

It's simply not possible.

If you force them to make the choice, they will elect to pay bills and eat over saving for the future.

Pretty much why SS exists IMO.

[yobnoc 142]

8 hours ago, jakee said:

Right, you do get that the people most likely to need SS are those who don't have much money to pour in?

 

If you think it's failing now, what happens when you let all the high earners leave the contributing pool?

There is a cap on the “high earners” at somewhere around $130,000. It’s a 6.2% tax on earnings up to that point. And I keep seeing people say “if you end SS.” I don’t think we should. Again, I simply believe that us dumb Americans should be able to manage our own savings should we choose to opt out. 

[billvon 2,400]

12 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I think that the concept is eluding some people here. 

Not at all.  The concept is quite simple.  It's the consequences that are giving people pause.

Quote

And I don't see it as cold-hearted at all to look someone in the face and tell them to live with their decisions.

OK.  So you would let them die.  That's at least an honest answer, but not one (historically) that many people in the US can get behind.

Quote

It's like the guy wheeling around an oxygen tank still suckin down cigarettes.  I don't feel for them in the least. 

Do you feel the same lack of empathy for someone who was born with a severe lung disorder, and who, through no fault of their own, will slowly suffocate over the course of 10 years?

[billvon 2,400]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

Let's assume we could end SS.  How would you phase it out?  You can't take it from the people that are already receiving it.  I'm 60 years old and have been having money taken from my checks all my life specifically for this program.  

Cool to see that you have gotten on board with socialism!

[SkyDekker 1,123]

53 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

There is a cap on the “high earners” at somewhere around $130,000. It’s a 6.2% tax on earnings up to that point. And I keep seeing people say “if you end SS.” I don’t think we should. Again, I simply believe that us dumb Americans should be able to manage our own savings should we choose to opt out. 

Like most libertarian ideas a nice soundbite and easy concept to understand. Unfortunately the consequences would be devastating, like with most libertarian ideas. It is such an egocentric way to look at things.

What about you suggest the contributions to "defense" are voluntary and people who do not agree with endless wars can opt out of their taxes for that? There are lots of people who feel quite capable defending themselves should the need arise. Shouldn't people be free to make that decision?

[yobnoc 142]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Like most libertarian ideas a nice soundbite and easy concept to understand. Unfortunately the consequences would be devastating, like with most libertarian ideas. It is such an egocentric way to look at things.

What about you suggest the contributions to "defense" are voluntary and people who do not agree with endless wars can opt out of their taxes for that? There are lots of people who feel quite capable defending themselves should the need arise. Shouldn't people be free to make that decision?

You touch on an interesting point.  The constitution actually mandates the Navy.  As for the defense budget, I'm on the side of cutting it way down.  The defense budget is so misspent and plagued with fraud and abuse, but as soon as you mention cutting it, you get conservative talking heads on tv accusing you of wanting to take body armor away from Marines.  We spend entirely too much money subsidizing defense contractors, but that's a completely different topic.  Social Security is not mandated by the Constitution.  Besides, it's apples to oranges: If I say I don't want my tax money going toward the endless war machine that is America, that does not come with any ability to say "I don't want the military to protect me personally," because that is not feasible in reality.  It's quite easy, however, to put a little flag on my social security number that says "ineligible for benefits."

Bill, I don't know what being born with a lung condition has to do with this.  I only know that my children were born healthy, and continue to stay healthy, and what I'm advocating is completely personal and individual in nature.  I understand it's an unpopular opinion, and when people assert it would have "catastrophic" consequences, I hear that.  It just doesn't sway me much.  You decide to exclude yourself, you should be prepared for what may follow.  If you're not, well, best of luck.  I might sound like a huge asshole, but I promise, once you meet me, you'll see that I really am a huge asshole.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I understand it's an unpopular opinion, and when people assert it would have "catastrophic" consequences, I hear that.  It just doesn't sway me much.  You decide to exclude yourself, you should be prepared for what may follow.

It doesn't sway you, because you are only thinking about yourself. You are like the lady who hated Obamacare cause she didn't know she was being covered by Obamacare.

[yobnoc 142]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

It doesn't sway you, because you are only thinking about yourself. You are like the lady who hated Obamacare cause she didn't know she was being covered by Obamacare.

Except not.  Because I fully understand the consequences to me personally if I should choose to opt out. 

I'd probably be a little less inclined to feel this way if the cap on earnings was taken away.  That would cause the program to be immediately solvent again.  But the American Oligarchy would never let that happen. 

 

And no on the selfish part too.  I believe that Social Security benefits would increase overall for those who would choose to stay in it due to much lower administrative costs (I looked it up; there's 60,000 federal jobs in social security administration *wow*).  I'm pretty liberal leaning most of the time, but there's a balance that has to be struck between personal responsibility and complete government rule over our lives.  We're supposed to be free.  We're not.  We're ruled by an oligarchy and have been since shortly after the inception of our country.  But I digress.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 minute ago, yobnoc said:

Except not.  Because I fully understand the consequences to me personally if I should choose to opt out

You seem to have the hardest time understanding this: it isn't about you. Policy isn't made with one person in mind.

 

Do you really want to be part of a society which allows people to fail and then says: fuck them.

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

You seem to have the hardest time understanding this: it isn't about you. Policy isn't made with one person in mind.

 

Do you really want to be part of a society which allows people to fail and then says: fuck them.

Yeah, I totally do want to live in a society that holds people accountable for their decisions. 

The argument you're using could be applied to literally any nanny-state policy. 

[wmw999 2,122]

Social security isn't to protect the provident from penury. It's to help protect the provident from the improvident. It can't completely do the job, but it goes a decent way.

Kind of like public schools. They're not to educate the children of highly-educated people who would do a bang-up job if left on their own. It's to make sure that everyone has a basic level of education.

BTW, that basic level of education is part of what helped forge the "American Miracle" of the early 1900's. Most urban Americans were literate, and therefore able to work in the factories, and produce the cheap goods that were imported to Europe, who couldn't compete because of their more expensive labor.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

The argument you're using could be applied to literally any nanny-state policy. 

If looking after the weak and vulnerable makes something a nanny-state then I guess I am in favour of a nanny state.

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If looking after the weak and vulnerable makes something a nanny-state then I guess I am in favour of a nanny state.

Your base assumption is that we're all too weak and vulnerable and stupid to make our own decisions though, for better or worse.  And you're continuing to conflate my position with abolishing SS, which I am not advocating for. 

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Bill, I don't know what being born with a lung condition has to do with this.  I only know that my children were born healthy, and continue to stay healthy, and what I'm advocating is completely personal and individual in nature.  I understand it's an unpopular opinion, and when people assert it would have "catastrophic" consequences, I hear that.  It just doesn't sway me much.  You decide to exclude yourself, you should be prepared for what may follow.  If you're not, well, best of luck.  I might sound like a huge asshole, but I promise, once you meet me, you'll see that I really am a huge asshole.

You seem to think that anyone on an oxygen tank must be there because they were stupid and harmed themselves, just as anyone who arrives at age 70 with no savings must be an irresponsible fool.

Life isn't like that.  Life isn't fair.  Some people are born with cystic fibrosis, and all the good wishes and wise planning in the world won't fix them.  Some people are born with IQ's of 70, and all the smart investment and hard work in the world won't let them save for retirement.  Again, you can say "let em all die; I don't give a shit.  Their lungs, their fault."  But again, most Americans aren't like that.

Quote

Your base assumption is that we're all too weak and vulnerable and stupid to make our own decisions though, for better or worse.

And your base assumption seems to be that anyone who ends up in a bad position got there because they were stupid and made bad decisions.  That's simply not true.

[yoink 321]

21 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Your base assumption is that we're all too weak and vulnerable and stupid to make our own decisions though, for better or worse.  And you're continuing to conflate my position with abolishing SS, which I am not advocating for. 

My base assumption is that research has shown that MOST people are bad at saving unless forced to do so.

How are you not getting that it's not all about you?

[yobnoc 142]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

You seem to think that anyone on an oxygen tank must be there because they were stupid and harmed themselves, just as anyone who arrives at age 70 with no savings must be an irresponsible fool.

Life isn't like that.  Life isn't fair.  Some people are born with cystic fibrosis, and all the good wishes and wise planning in the world won't fix them.  Some people are born with IQ's of 70, and all the smart investment and hard work in the world won't let them save for retirement.  Again, you can say "let em all die; I don't give a shit.  Their lungs, their fault."  But again, most Americans aren't like that.

And your base assumption seems to be that anyone who ends up in a bad position got there because they were stupid and made bad decisions.  That's simply not true.

Bill, you're conflating my position with that of abolishing Social Security.  That is simply not my position.  My position is that I should be free to choose to exclude myself (just me) from the pool of beneficiaries and invest my money in a way that I see fit to benefit me better.  If I was more worried about disability, I could elect to invest that money into a disability insurance policy of my choosing.  And I specifically mentioned someone pulling around an oxygen tank and sucking down cigarettes, like you see every time you go to the casino.  For folks who are disadvantaged or who simply like the idea of that safety net, more power to them.  But I believe in choice.

[normiss 622]

2 minutes ago, yoink said:

My base assumption is that research has shown that MOST people are bad at saving unless forced to do so.

How are you not getting that it's not all about you?

Seems from his perspective, that's all it's about.

Old, poor, unlucky, sick people, and those unable to make a decent living are just stuck with their sorry life and it's their problem. Why should he be forced to save money like THEY do?

He's clearly smarter and more privileged, let him take his chances, with luck he might not get Bernie Madoff'ed.

[yobnoc 142]

5 minutes ago, yoink said:

My base assumption is that research has shown that MOST people are bad at saving unless forced to do so.

How are you not getting that it's not all about you?

I specifically stated at the beginning of this thread that this was all about personal choice.  If people choose to invest into a social safety net program, then by all means they should be able to.  If people elect to opt out of that social safety net, then by all means they should be able to.  I don't feel comfortable reaching into your wallet, grabbing money out, giving part of it to myself for the trouble, and looking you in the eye and saying "It's for your own good; you might need this someday so I'll just hang on to it for you." 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 minute ago, yobnoc said:

Bill, you're conflating my position with that of abolishing Social Security.  That is simply not my position.  My position is that I should be free to choose to exclude myself (just me) from the pool of beneficiaries and invest my money in a way that I see fit to benefit me better.  If I was more worried about disability, I could elect to invest that money into a disability insurance policy of my choosing.  And I specifically mentioned someone pulling around an oxygen tank and sucking down cigarettes, like you see every time you go to the casino.  For folks who are disadvantaged or who simply like the idea of that safety net, more power to them.  But I believe in choice.

And what you aren't getting is that this proposal doesn't work. It makes no logical sense.

The people most likely to stop their contributions are likely those who provide the majority of funding. This means that SS will be even further underfunded. Which means your tax dollars will still go to fund SS but now you are not getting any benefit out of it.

Effectively your proposal is to be able to stop getting benefits, but really your tax dollars still going towards it. But you'll "feel better".

[yobnoc 142]

3 minutes ago, normiss said:

Seems from his perspective, that's all it's about.

Old, poor, unlucky, sick people, and those unable to make a decent living are just stuck with their sorry life and it's their problem. Why should he be forced to save money like THEY do?

He's clearly smarter and more privileged, let him take his chances, with luck he might not get Bernie Madoff'ed.

When did I say any of that?  Go ahead and quote it.  I'll wait.