Beating Social Security

[JoeTheEconomist]

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to kick pay that tax.

Think before you post.

Sorry but employer contribution ARE yours and therefore must be counted

NO, they are only 'yours' because the payroll tax is part of the Social Security law. End SS and that tax ends. You keep your 6% or whatever, but that's it.

Once again I have always said in these discussions that the payroll tax and the employer contributions should not end but that the money should be left in the hands of the individual

why can't you seem to understand the concept?

The economic community assumes that the employers portion of the payroll tax is reflected in lower wages - the employee foots the whole bill.

 

[Camp]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

Social Security is not savings. There is virtually nothing saved. Social Security is conceptual insurance which redistributes income from workers to retirees. Comparing insurance and investment is like comparing Michael Phelps and Uriah Bolt - provide that the insurance is well run. So you are suggesting that they can't afford to put money into a system of savings, but they can put the same funds into a program that saves nothing. That is a false premise.

You can view SS as anything. Structurally it isn't remotely close to welfare. The suggestion that it is says you are not familiar with the mechanics and cashflows of the system.

You are so obsessed with pretending to be the master know it all that you misread my post. I was addressing the concept of replacing SS with a private investment portfolio. My welfare statements were simply responding to those who consider any check from the government to be a form of welfare or an entitlement program. The main point I was making is that most people have to be forced to prepare for retirement and that it is feasible to force people to pay a tax it is not feasible to force people to pay into a privately managed system.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

Social Security is not savings. There is virtually nothing saved. Social Security is conceptual insurance which redistributes income from workers to retirees. Comparing insurance and investment is like comparing Michael Phelps and Uriah Bolt - provide that the insurance is well run. So you are suggesting that they can't afford to put money into a system of savings, but they can put the same funds into a program that saves nothing. That is a false premise.

You can view SS as anything. Structurally it isn't remotely close to welfare. The suggestion that it is says you are not familiar with the mechanics and cashflows of the system.

You are so obsessed with pretending to be the master know it all that you misread my post. I was addressing the concept of replacing SS with a private investment portfolio. My welfare statements were simply responding to those who consider any check from the government to be a form of welfare or an entitlement program. The main point I was making is that most people have to be forced to prepare for retirement and that it is feasible to force people to pay a tax it is not feasible to force people to pay into a privately managed system.

The SS debate is conducted at the level of fairytales. It is why the debate goes nowhere.

What you call being a master is in my mind the entry point to a serious discussion. Insurance is an expense to manage risk. Savings is an investment to accumulate wealth. These go together like bacon and eggs. Yes both are food, but no they are not the same thing.

If you see SS as welfare, end it. Andrew Biggs reports that nearly one-fifth of the poorest quintile of retirees fail to even qualify for Social Security benefits. It isn't even a universal program yet we talk about it as though it is part of a 'safety-net'.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The 15.3% does more than provide retirement benefits. You are really talking about 10.6% (soon to be less because of DI). They would be worse off if they keep the 15%, 10.6%, 10% if the government has to raise income taxes in order to pay benefits to existing retirees. Unless you will tell retirees to pound sand, the deal you are suggesting does nothing but change the name of the tax.

Any transition would require some sort of grandfather clause and even the so called extra benefits are pretty crappy

SS disability is one of the worst out there in fact any private DI would be less expensive and provide much better benefits

I find it funny that any private pension fund would be deemed illegal if current contributions were used to pay out benefits but you people think it's just fine for the government to do it

If you grandfather the deal, then there is no way to improve the system. Someone is going to have to pound sand. The generations thereafter can improve. Until you tell someone to pound sand, all you are doing is changing the name.

DI is a problem for DI. It is a tiny fraction of the overall problem. The entire system can go away, and it adds a year to the solvency of the old-age system.

TOTAL BS.

There have been a myriad of proposals out there that don't tear up the system but seek to transform it over decades to something that forces responsibility on those who otherwise would wind up destitute and rewards those who are more pro-active.

Why would a millionare need to save for his retirement through the government ?

Name one and we can discuss

I've already listed one.

1. You start by personalizing S.S. That means you get a statement that says this is what you put in, your interest, and balance. It is handled by the government. Not wall street. That money is yours for retirement. When you start taking out, your balance goes down. If you run out, you go on minimum support from the government (and I do mean minimum) because now you are on welfare.
2. When you pass, remaining money in your account goes to your designated heirs. It beefs up their accounts.
3. If an account hits a minimum, then you have the choice to stop paying in. This might 1,000,000 or 2,000,000. It depends on when you plan to retire.
4. We stop the employer portion and take it all from the employee. Initially, employers would be required to add that to their employees salaries until things equilibrate. That way people see how much money is going into the system. Many people today do not realize that their employer pays an equal amount into S.S.
5. We lift the cap on S.S. We don't raise it. We go to the top and work our way back down. Below 150K, it becomes progressive.
6. With the extra revenue from (5), we start to cut back the contribution of those at the bottom (again it be somewhat progressive to start) to the general fund and start the personalized funds. It makes no difference to the bottom line. With the extra revenue and the existing general fund, it simply means that we are now starting to accumulate people's actual balances. The %'s will shift over time.
7. We means test the rich off the program. I don't like it, but that's gotta happen. Again, it is progressive and only starts with people who have incomes above some silly level like $100,000 a year (maybe they only get 90% of they were slated to collect).
8. We bust the elderly and anyone else who is scamming the system. And I mean we come down hard on them. This is a violation of trust and if you steal from the elderly you are going to PAY dearly....that includes a reduction of benefits and loss of property.

All this gets moved around and arranged so that on day 1, the percentage going to personalized accounts is 1/2 percent (the other 13+% going to the general fund. In a year, it shifts a little more.

We will need to look at the general fund to see if there need to be adjustments.

If we start today, 40 years from now everyone's contributions go to personalized accounts. We've done away with Pay-go and we have a general fund for those who run out of cash before they pass away.

How the money gets handled on the government side will be another discussion. Harvard has actuaries who kick the crapp out of the stock market every year. We would pull some of them in and make safe investments (like mortgages where you have a 30% downpayment...imagine interest rates if you had all that money looking for a safe haven).

This isn't comprehensive and it certainly needs to be moved around.

But something LIKE THIS beast the living s**t out of the current system.

Don't even bother to respond with a rebuttal unless you can show me WITH NUMBER how the two compare.

It is going to be difficult to give you numbers to compare when your list doesn't have hard numbers. 5 and 6 seem to be a wash. #7 sounds great but it will save you a very small amount.

Today SS gets 10.6 (it is about to get closer to 10 because of DI). So you are looking at 1/2 percent going to a private account and 9.5 percent going to SS. At 1/2 percent a typical worker will get to $1,000,000 somewhere around 70 years.

These figures are aggressive. The worker starts @ 28K, and gets 3% real raises for 45 years. He invests the money 100% in stocks earning 6.5% real. After 45 years, he has about $529,000. What are you going to do for the minimum wage worker?

He may require a boost or it may be a minimum payment which means he is going to pay a greater percentage. They have to be on track for some minimum when they retire or become disabled.

Speaking of which, unemployment insurance would go away and would be paid into this account too. There are some other things that might go into the account too. If you become unemployed, you get a check from this account.

When you are employed again...you are going to pay in extra to recover. Your parents could move some of theirs to yours if they wanted to cover you too.

5 and 6 are supposed to be a near wash.

7 has to happen as does 8.

I will grab some of my old spreadsheets. But, the 1/2% goes to 1% at some point and will steadily grow. The overall burden will swell at some point and will be helped again by the guys with the big dollars. In 20 years, the average worker will be putting something like 1/2 of his social security into his personal account. In 40 years, the guy starting out puts it
all in there.

In total you want to make SS a welfare program (not sure to the degree). Having researched SS for 5 years, I can tell you the cheapest version is end the program and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program.

I may have already shared this with you, but it explains the false promises of the Bush 2005 proposal. Yours is better than what he suggested, but you ought to make the same mistakes. The economic returns of Social Security were wildly overstated, and he made legacy SS costs a ward of the state.

What are your projections for 7 and 8.

What I see is a massive legacy cost that will be shifted to the general taxpayers. That is no more realistic than saying leprechauns will pay for the system.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out how you got that out of my post.

I posted a few things later on that provide some idea of the targets I am shooting for.

Possibly, we could take this on to the Bull Ring where we can discuss it one on one and not have to wade through the other stuff.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

Wild speculations.

Oh btw, the American People will never destroy Social Security, so you extremists on the Right are engaging in little more than idle chatter when you discuss your 'plans'.

I put forth a plan that keeps it as S.S. Not destroying it.

It's you that is putting up idle chatter.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

Wild speculations.

Oh btw, the American People will never destroy Social Security, so you extremists on the Right are engaging in little more than idle chatter when you discuss your 'plans'.

I put forth a plan that keeps it as S.S. Not destroying it.

It's you that is putting up idle chatter.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

==========

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Right wingers hate Social Security and welfare ( all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget ) but absolutely LOVE giving money to corporations in tax cuts and subsidies -- CORPORATE WELFARE which is a FAR FAR larger expense to the government than social programs for human beings.

So, basically, one could say that righties hate PEOPLE.

And it shows in their posts.

Their posts are full of words of hate and envy.

Righties think everyone is out to phuck them and steal from them and no one but them works for their money ... everyone else is a " leech ".

 

[Arizona Willie]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

==========

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Right wingers hate Social Security and welfare ( all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget ) but absolutely LOVE giving money to corporations in tax cuts and subsidies -- CORPORATE WELFARE which is a FAR FAR larger expense to the government than social programs for human beings.

So, basically, one could say that righties hate PEOPLE.

And it shows in their posts.

Their posts are full of words of hate and envy.

Righties think everyone is out to phuck them and steal from them and no one but them works for their money ... everyone else is a " leech ".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

==========

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Right wingers hate Social Security and welfare ( all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget ) but absolutely LOVE giving money to corporations in tax cuts and subsidies -- CORPORATE WELFARE which is a FAR FAR larger expense to the government than social programs for human beings.

So, basically, one could say that righties hate PEOPLE.

And it shows in their posts.

Their posts are full of words of hate and envy.

Righties think everyone is out to phuck them and steal from them and no one but them works for their money ... everyone else is a " leech ".

"...all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget..."

OMG!!

What a dunce you are.

Federal Spending In One Beautiful Pie Chart

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW, dunce....that pie chart is from a far Left source.

Check and see.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW, dunce....that pie chart is from a far Left source.

Check and see.

Tell us what the mistakes are in the chart.

 

[NYcarbineer]

BTW, dunce....that pie chart is from a far Left source.

Check and see.

Do you remember posting this once?

"To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity."

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW, dunce....that pie chart is from a far Left source.

Check and see.

Do you remember posting this once?

"To dismiss a source or author because they promulgate an alternative or even a hated perspective, without consideration of the truth of their premise lacks integrity."

You moron....I didn't dismiss it....I endorsed it!

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

PC never, ever supports her allegations that she makes up.

After a week...I am still waiting for her to show how she would "beat" social security

There are least three given in the thread.

Stop lying.

Wild speculations.

Oh btw, the American People will never destroy Social Security, so you extremists on the Right are engaging in little more than idle chatter when you discuss your 'plans'.

I put forth a plan that keeps it as S.S. Not destroying it.

It's you that is putting up idle chatter.

This is a problem with the Social Security debate - everybody has a different definition. Your plan keeps S.S. as you define it. History of the program is very different. Everybody has their own definition.

Andrew Biggs is a policy expert, and maintains a blog on the issue. My article is Smith: “What should Social Security do?”. His article is largely the same concept. The articles happen to have been published days apart by coincidence. I was working on mine when I saw his. I don't agree with his direction, but at least he has one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congressional Budget Office.

Far more reliable than the moon pie links, PC.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have given multiple examples of how anyone could beat SS so anyone who wants to see them can just use the search function

They can't beat it at the same level of risk.

of course they can there are other bond vehicles that pay out far more than US treasury bills but then again why would anyone settle for that when historically a 7 or 8% return is very doable

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

WOw maybe you should let the fuck nuts in government handle your money

No retirement strategy is based on a single investment

I'll repeat the questions:

What bonds are considered as safe as US treasuries and pay a higher return?

Name ANY investment currently paying 7% considered as safe as a US treasury.

I'll repeat the answer

A retirement strategy requires a portfolio of investments designed to meet a goal not just one stock or bond.

Some stocks and bonds in a portfolio will pay more some less than 7

But regardless of that I do not see why you are against my plan for SS people and employers will still have to contribute and people like you with no clue how to handle money can put all your contributions in T bills and be guaranteed the same piss poor return you get now

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

This misconception is the problem. No one has had 15% of their income taken for a lifetime. These tax rates have only existed for 25 years. You are not haven't 15% of life time income taken. It is 15% of wages up to a cap.

and most people earn under the cap don't they?

It's the young people today who would benefit the most if they had control of their money not so much people over 50 as the lost opportunity costs are already too great to be overcome

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tell me how many of you have actually figured out how much money you would have if you had invested the 15% of your life time income instead of it being confiscated by the fucking government?

I have and if I had had control of it I would be retired already

The payroll tax isn't 15%.

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

I have done the computation with actual contributions based on the SSA statement to me. I used actual S&P mutual funds to track performance with dividends reinvested rather than theoretical what-if numbers. I started work in 1983 at the start of the greatest bull market in world history. At 67, when I retire, I would theoretically have had about $800,000. Of course that assumes that I do not work a day after the age of 50. Everybody is different.

so better or worse than SS and what would happen if you still contributed to a Roth IRA and a company sponsored plan?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Excuse me but you are forgetting about the employer contribution

What's the matter you forget about the other times I've informed you of this?

The employer contribution is not YOUR contribution. If you end SS you end the obligation of your employer to kick pay that tax.

Think before you post.

Sorry but employer contribution ARE yours and therefore must be counted

NO, they are only 'yours' because the payroll tax is part of the Social Security law. End SS and that tax ends. You keep your 6% or whatever, but that's it.

Once again I have always said in these discussions that the payroll tax and the employer contributions should not end but that the money should be left in the hands of the individual

why can't you seem to understand the concept?

The economic community assumes that the employers portion of the payroll tax is reflected in lower wages - the employee foots the whole bill.

It's still part of employee compensation

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone who had control of the 15% of their life time income confiscated by the government for SS would be much better off and I daresay would have something left to leave their families when they die

SS is nothing but guaranteed government dependence

The people will become dependent no matter what. Not everyone has the skill or knowledge to invest and prepare for their retirement. The options seem to be forced payment into a program. Taxes Social Security is the system we have chosen. The other option would be forced investment into private firms and entities. Can't imagine forcing folks to pay into a private investment firm. Who pays when the firm invest in a looser or the market just tanks when it is time for some particular folks to retire?
The problem is not that the numbers and concept of your idea are incorrect, rather it is that over a lifetime or working, most people have periods of not really being able to afford to put a percentage of their earnings into a savings program. They will not do without things they deem necessities and priorities but will instead make excuses to skip the investment of their funds in favor or those other things. Whether it be the purchase of a chicken for a Sunday dinner or a few extra dollars for a car payment, the funds are not being invested the way they should be. It may be a weakness and people should be responsible for themselves, but it is what it is. In the end, we would end up with folks who didn't invest the way they should have and becoming persons who without assistance end up living on the sidewalks in boxes or homeless shelters, dependent on charity or the state to feed them and care for their needs. Just straight out welfare.
In one way, SS can be viewed as a scheme to force citizens to pay taxes to at least contribute to the funds that might be used to support them when they go on "welfare" if welfare is the way you choose to describe Social Security.

==========

If it wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Right wingers hate Social Security and welfare ( all Social spending by Federal Gov't is less than 3% of the total budget ) but absolutely LOVE giving money to corporations in tax cuts and subsidies -- CORPORATE WELFARE which is a FAR FAR larger expense to the government than social programs for human beings.

So, basically, one could say that righties hate PEOPLE.

And it shows in their posts.

Their posts are full of words of hate and envy.

Righties think everyone is out to phuck them and steal from them and no one but them works for their money ... everyone else is a " leech ".

Lefty idiots think everybody who disagrees with them hates them

The real issue here is that if people had control over where their SS contributions went they would retire much richer than they can now and the government can't have that after all when less people are dependent the government and the fucking crooks who run it have less power