yobnoc

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

But hurrrrr emailzzzzz, amirite?

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.

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%).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Yep. Fully understand that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?