Social Security

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Bill, you're conflating my position with that of abolishing Social Security.  

?? No, I'm not.  You want to make it optional.  That will have a similar (but not the same) effect as abolishing it.  

Quote

For folks who are disadvantaged or who simply like the idea of that safety net, more power to them. 

Who pays for those disadvantaged people?  They do not have the option of paying into it.

A "safety net" is, by definition, supported by people more able to pay.  A safety net where you have to catch yourself is not a safety net.  It's a concrete floor.

[normiss 622]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

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

"Seems from his perspective"

Reading comprehension is important.

And I thought you thought you were smarter than that.

[billvon 2,400]

2 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

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." 

Every single government service, from the military to roads to air traffic control, does that.  Every single one.

Quote

 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. 

Neither is saying "we will make social security optional, so only the people who want it have to pay for it."  The whole point of social security is to provide people with a secure social safety net if they need it.

However, feel free to opt out of receiving social security benefits; that will help the problem.  And if everyone who doesn't need SS opts out, then the problem goes away.  Surely that is the most libertarian solution of all.

[yobnoc 142]

29 minutes ago, billvon said:

Every single government service, from the military to roads to air traffic control, does that.  Every single one.

Here's the difference: All those things that you just listed provide a *service* that is necessary for a society to function.  This is "Hey, give me $10, I'm going to hold onto it for you until such time that you might need it, and if you by chance reach the ripe old age of 67, you can have $6 of it back after my administrative fee, but only at 25 cents per month.

I also said earlier that if the income cap was eliminated, I'd feel much differently.  As it stands, this is a program that is heaped on the shoulders of the middle-to-upper-middle class, and on its current trajectory it is going to fail completely.  I doubt my kids will be guaranteed any benefits at all, and I'm certain that if I have grandchildren someday, they'll just learn about it in their US History class.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

19 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I just don't see it as a good return on investment.  

Hi yobnoc,

A real world example.  I have a very good friend ( former jumper ) who back in the early '80's owned two gas stations.  He made about 2 1/2 times what I was making ( me, a Mech Engr working for the US gov't. & in the top 1/3 of money makers ).  As a self-employed person, he elected to not pay into SS.  Then the bottom fell out.  Today, he is 72, gets a smidgeon of SS and says that he will have to work until he is dead to just put food into his mouth.

He thought just like you do.

Jerry Baumchen

[yobnoc 142]

1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi yobnoc,

A real world example.  I have a very good friend ( former jumper ) who back in the early '80's owned two gas stations.  He made about 2 1/2 times what I was making ( me, a Mech Engr working for the US gov't. & in the top 1/3 of money makers ).  As a self-employed person, he elected to not pay into SS.  Then the bottom fell out.  Today, he is 72, gets a smidgeon of SS and says that he will have to work until he is dead to just put food into his mouth.

He thought just like you do.

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry, I'm going to just withhold a response because I don't want to sound like I'm insulting your friend.  I'm already being crucified for positions I don't hold and having words put in my mouth by almost everyone who has chimed in.

[billvon 2,400]

12 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Here's the difference: All those things that you just listed provide a *service* that is necessary for a society to function.  This is "Hey, give me $10, I'm going to hold onto it for you until such time that you might need it, and if you by chance reach the ripe old age of 67, you can have $6 of it back after my administrative fee, but only at 25 cents per month.

Social security provides a service to society as well, and history has demonstrated that _some_ form of it is necessary. It is one you could provide for yourself (of course) but it's still a service.

And that is true of all those other things I listed as well.  Military?  You could pool your money with your neighbors and hire mercenaries if the US was ever invaded.  Why waste all that money when it's not needed?  

Roads?  Do all toll roads.  That way no government agent is reaching into your wallet, saying "hey, let me take $2000 of your hard earned money and use it on roads you may never need."  You pay on an as-needed basis.  (And think of the marketing opportunities!  "Blowout deal - only $2000 to drive to work for a MONTH!  Side trips not included.")

Air traffic control?  Same thing.  You could have a pay-for-use private company control all US airspace (and indeed that has been proposed.)  It would probably mean the end of general aviation and skydiving - but that's life in a free society.

Quote

I also said earlier that if the income cap was eliminated, I'd feel much differently.  As it stands, this is a program that is heaped on the shoulders of the middle-to-upper-middle class, and on its current trajectory it is going to fail completely.  I doubt my kids will be guaranteed any benefits at all, and I'm certain that if I have grandchildren someday, they'll just learn about it in their US History class.

I agree we have to fix it.  Means testing is a good way to do that.

I understand your approach, and it would be great if it could work that way.  It can't.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

13 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

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."

You aren't. The government is. They do this for all kinds of things that sometimes I don't benefit from, but other people do:

• Medical Research
• Air Traffic Control
• NASA
• Military
• Agricultural research
• Tax policy and changes
• etc.

[yoink 321]

7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Jerry, I'm going to just withhold a response because I don't want to sound like I'm insulting your friend.  I'm already being crucified for positions I don't hold and having words put in my mouth by almost everyone who has chimed in.

We get it.

You think a) it wouldn't happen to you, and b) people who did make the decision should live with the consequences if it goes poorly.

 

But EVERYONE'S point is that that is an overly simplistic and naive view when you're talking about large percentages of society rather than just your own individual position.

 

Just google 'how many Americans save money'. Then extrapolate how society deals with the fallout of the reality of THAT number of people with zero savings. Do you particularly want thousands of homeless and starving people on the streets of your city? I don't believe you've honestly considered the consequences of your idea when it's certain that it'll result in MILLIONS of people being destitute.

 

 

[yobnoc 142]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/11/11/the-under-30s-should-demand-an-opt-out-of-social-security/#3853904c6c79

 

Here's the thing that we haven't been talking about much at all here.  My main issue with Social Security is that it is failing miserably.  This article is from 2011, when I was 23 years old.  Forbes isn't exactly known for being left-leaning either. 

[Stumpy 256]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

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." 

Couldn't really care less what you are comfortable with - there are rules in society that you have to follow. Your idea doesn't make any sense and doesn't fly. In a civilised society the less fortunate are looked after by those more fortunate. It's not "nanny state" - it's basic humanity. That shouldn't really be hard to understand.

 

[yobnoc 142]

1 minute ago, Stumpy said:

Couldn't really care less what you are comfortable with - there are rules in society that you have to follow. Your idea doesn't make any sense and doesn't fly. In a civilised society the less fortunate are looked after by those more fortunate. It's not "nanny state" - it's basic humanity. That shouldn't really be hard to understand.

 

Except that it's broken and failing and is going to cease to exist in any meaningful way anyway.  And nobody's doing anything about it.  The article I linked has an interesting idea: to allow an opt-out for the individual but the employer would still have to pay into the program, which would ensure that the revenue flow to those on OASI/FICA would remain. 

It's not the concept that I'm opposed to, it's the program itself, and it doesn't get talked about nearly enough. 

In 2017, the average monthly payout for SS was $1404.

By 2035, those payments will begin to decrease steadily until nothing is left.

So forgive my *discomfort* with the government wasting my money on a program that is on track to disappear in my lifetime.  I don't like having my money stolen from me.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi yobnoc,

A real world example.  I have a very good friend ( former jumper ) who back in the early '80's owned two gas stations.  He made about 2 1/2 times what I was making ( me, a Mech Engr working for the US gov't. & in the top 1/3 of money makers ).  As a self-employed person, he elected to not pay into SS.  Then the bottom fell out.  Today, he is 72, gets a smidgeon of SS and says that he will have to work until he is dead to just put food into his mouth.

He thought just like you do.

Jerry Baumchen

 

57 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Jerry, I'm going to just withhold a response because I don't want to sound like I'm insulting your friend.  I'm already being crucified for positions I don't hold and having words put in my mouth by almost everyone who has chimed in.

So what exactly is your position?

You want the ability to choose whether or not to participate in SS. It sounds like you would choose to not participate. 

So how would you be different from Jerry's friend?

 

Without details, it's hard to say, but it's entirely conceivable that he had some sound and sensible (you know, 'smart') investment strategies. 

Lots of people saw huge amounts of 'sensibly' invested money simply disappear in the financial crisis in 08 (from the current age of 72, he would have been 61 in 08). Any investment that gives any real return has risk. 

 

There's also the chance of falling prey to a con man like Madoff. He fooled a lot of really smart people. 

 

So let me ask:
What would you do, if you could opt out of SS, and then saw the majority of your investments go 'poof'? 

 

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, wolfriverjoe said:

 

So what exactly is your position?

You want the ability to choose whether or not to participate in SS. It sounds like you would choose to not participate. 

So how would you be different from Jerry's friend?

 

Without details, it's hard to say, but it's entirely conceivable that he had some sound and sensible (you know, 'smart') investment strategies. 

Lots of people saw huge amounts of 'sensibly' invested money simply disappear in the financial crisis in 08 (from the current age of 72, he would have been 61 in 08). Any investment that gives any real return has risk. 

 

There's also the chance of falling prey to a con man like Madoff. He fooled a lot of really smart people. 

 

So let me ask:
What would you do, if you could opt out of SS, and then saw the majority of your investments go 'poof'? 

 

I don't have all my eggs in one basket, put simply.  I'm not looking for a get-rich-quick scheme.  I have a diverse set of investments that, while it would hurt, no single investment would cripple me if it went "poof."

Again though, I don't see SS as an investment.  Literally nobody will benefit from it in 35 years' time.  It's no different than if I were to set 6.2% of my income on fire every paycheck.

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Except that it's broken and failing and is going to cease to exist in any meaningful way anyway.  And nobody's doing anything about it.

Several people have proposed fixes.

Chris Christie proposed means testing during his presidential campaign in 2015.  In 2016, Senator Sam Johnson introduced a SS reform bill.

Quote

I don't like having my money stolen from me.

No one does, for anything.  Personally, I'd rather pay for an elderly neighbor to be able to eat than cages to put kids in.  (Or for another billion worth of problematic fighter jets.)  But being in a society means you sometimes have to pay for things you don't like.  So perhaps put the tiny violin down.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I don't have all my eggs in one basket, put simply.  I'm not looking for a get-rich-quick scheme.  I have a diverse set of investments that, while it would hurt, no single investment would cripple me if it went "poof."

Again though, I don't see SS as an investment.  Literally nobody will benefit from it in 35 years' time.  It's no different than if I were to set 6.2% of my income on fire every paycheck.

And during the financial crisis, lots of people had diversified investment strategies. 
The crisis was widespread enough that lots of people saw all their investments go 'poof'.

You didn't answer the question of what would you do if all your investments suffered significant losses.

Or do you simply think that it 'can't happen to you'?

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, billvon said:

Several people have proposed fixes.

Chris Christie proposed means testing during his presidential campaign in 2015.  In 2016, Senator Sam Johnson introduced a SS reform bill.

No one does, for anything.  Personally, I'd rather pay for an elderly neighbor to be able to eat than cages to put kids in.  (Or for another billion worth of problematic fighter jets.)  But being in a society means you sometimes have to pay for things you don't like.  So perhaps put the tiny violin down.

I'm with you on all of those specific examples, except I don't think that means testing is the solution.  Senator Sanders put forward not-going-anywhere-under-republicans legislation to eliminate the income cap on FICA tax.  Some other nations stopped short of that, but installed a "break-point" where income above a prescribed value is still subject to the tax, but at a much lower rate (i.e. below x=6.2%, and anything above x=2%). 

[yobnoc 142]

12 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And during the financial crisis, lots of people had diversified investment strategies. 
The crisis was widespread enough that lots of people saw all their investments go 'poof'.

You didn't answer the question of what would you do if all your investments suffered significant losses.

Or do you simply think that it 'can't happen to you'?

I just don't understand the relevance.  Social Security is the topic, and on the course we're on, that isn't going to be there to supplement my broke ass if I do "lose it all."

So, if we're not going to fix it, then let's be realistic that it's about to have its death rattle.

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/11/11/the-under-30s-should-demand-an-opt-out-of-social-security/#3853904c6c79

 

Here's the thing that we haven't been talking about much at all here.  My main issue with Social Security is that it is failing miserably.  This article is from 2011, when I was 23 years old.  Forbes isn't exactly known for being left-leaning either. 

Maybe you should talk to the politicians who are intentionally making SS fail miserably. They, like you, want it to fail and end. So they can pocket the money most Americans never see.

[normiss 622]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

I just don't understand the relevance.  Social Security is the topic, and on the course we're on, that isn't going to be there to supplement my broke ass if I do "lose it all."

So, if we're not going to fix it, then let's be realistic that it's about to have its death rattle.

Social Security isn't an investment. Force politicians to stop stealing from it.

You want to count on investments for your retirement, not everyone has that option.

[yobnoc 142]

14 minutes ago, normiss said:

Maybe you should talk to the politicians who are intentionally making SS fail miserably. They, like you, want it to fail and end. So they can pocket the money most Americans never see.

Again, you misrepresent my position.  I do not *want* it to fail at all. 

[normiss 622]

6 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Again, you misrepresent my position.  I do not *want* it to fail at all. 

I didn't claim you did, I simply contribute why it's failing with a desire to fix it for those less fortunate than those of us lucky enough to be able to actually make investments in our efforts to live somewhat comfortably in our later stage in life.

Which makes me suddenly curious about some people's thoughts on medical costs, planning, insurance....I've seen familys ruin multiple generations due to their poor choices in genetics.

[yobnoc 142]

 

34 minutes ago, normiss said:

Maybe you should talk to the politicians who are intentionally making SS fail miserably. They,

Quote

like you, want it to fail and end

. So they can pocket the money most Americans never see.

Um....yeah you did?

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, yobnoc said:

I'm with you on all of those specific examples, except I don't think that means testing is the solution.   

Why not?

Quote

Senator Sanders put forward not-going-anywhere-under-republicans legislation to eliminate the income cap on FICA tax.  Some other nations stopped short of that, but installed a "break-point" where income above a prescribed value is still subject to the tax, but at a much lower rate (i.e. below x=6.2%, and anything above x=2%).

That would work as well.  But overall I think it's better to reduce benefits to those who don't need it than increase taxes to enlarge the program.

[normiss 622]

4 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Except that it's broken and failing and is going to cease to exist in any meaningful way anyway.  And nobody's doing anything about it.

I didn't say that...