Beating Social Security

[rightwinger]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

This statement is ignorant.

Prior to Social Security most people worked on the family farm or in the family business. As they got older, they got reduced responsiblities.

Industrialization made it so the elderly had to get out of the way. And they had no where to go.

Once again, piss poor history lesson from the left.

You think 1930s Americans were all farmers?
What about the farm workers? what happened to them when they could no longer work?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

This statement is ignorant.

Prior to Social Security most people worked on the family farm or in the family business. As they got older, they got reduced responsiblities.

Industrialization made it so the elderly had to get out of the way. And they had no where to go.

Once again, piss poor history lesson from the left.

You think 1930s Americans were all farmers?
What about the farm workers? what happened to them when they could no longer work?

I am telling you what every history book on S.S. has said. Deal with it.

There were very few farm workers that were not tied to families. And like the family, the older they got the less they were asked to do and their pay was reduced.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to judge laws for their constitutionality and to strike them down if they are deemed unconstitutional. That power is exercised, constitutionally, by the Supreme Court.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Per the title of this thread, the term "Beating" means doing better than.....
And today, another lesson in "The Mythology of Big Government Solutions."
Social security.

Another of the cosmic gaffes of the 32nd President, Social Security.....well, OK...the idea was good....but not the planning nor the insight necessary to go with it.

Is there a far, far better iteration of Social Security than the one with which Franklin Roosevelt insisted on saddling America?
A free-market version, more consistent with the vision of our Founders?
You betcha;!
Unveiled in this thread.



First....Roosevelt's 'gift:'






2. The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

3. "The question here is not whether or not the intention of the SSA is beneficent, but whether or not its inception was properly vetted. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on the assumption that information is not buried or distorted, and all aspects of same are given access prior to acceptance of the plan."
Beck and Balfe, “Broke.”







....this thread will show that, once again....
...the Right is right.

You have a misplaced understanding of the problems of Social Security. FDR was the least of the problem. He actually opposed what Social Security has become.

This is probably the best piece on FDR's Visions vs what we have today.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

Yes they expected increasing life expectancy. What they did not expect was tax cuts and benefit increases that were not remotely part of the plan. Honestly most people do not even understand how increasing life expectancy affects Social Security.

The Impact of Life Expectancy on Social Security : FedSmith.com

No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

No one calculated the long-term costs?

The balance of workers has little to do with Social Security's financial problems. AJ Altmeyer who ran SS in 1944 explained the problem to Congress in 1944 before the Baby Boomers were even an itch in the pants. Yes he calculated the long-term costs.

Predicting Social Security’s Financial Imbalance : FedSmith.com

As conservatives have always banged the drum for free market solutions, plans thwarted by Liberals, socialists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, .....big government devotees of every stripe.....

Like GWB's plan for Social Security? I am not sure where the free market was in that solution.

Bush’s plan would not have fixed Social Security

"The Bush reform would not fix Social Security. It switched which pockets would pay for the program, resulting in an even larger system. It expanded the revenue reach of the system, and created guarantees for current voters that came directly at the expense of future voters. The entire plan was nothing more than an elaborate way to kick the can from generation to generation.

What would our children get for the $10.4 trillion bail-out? They would get the privilege to save for their own retirement. "

1. " The CBO puts the 75-year imbalance in Social Security at 1.2% of GDP—about $200 billion in 2014, and rising steadily as GDP increases. If we do nothing, the Social Security actuaries estimated last year, all Social Security reserves will be exhausted by 2033, after which revenues could cover only three-quarters of currently scheduled benefits." The Hard Numbers on Social Security

a. Social Security Liability ....$14.4 trillion (into the future)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Things are considerably worse than your numbers suggest. Not sure where the Debt Clock gets its data. It understates the problem by 10 trillion.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Roosevelt's Social Security plan proved faulty right from the start.


4. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving Social Security benefits, paid in a total of $24.75....
...and during her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.”



Ms. Fuller was not the only one who benefits from the flawed planning by big government (read 'Roosevelt's Folly').
Lack of planning is the reason for the huge liability America faces from Social Security....


a. " According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in.
In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...re-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/


Good thinking, Liberals.

Your comments include medicare benefits which came in 30 years after Social Security. The link uses Urban Institute data which has since been acknowledged to be wrong. You need to use the 2015 data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to judge laws for their constitutionality and to strike them down if they are deemed unconstitutional. That power is exercised, constitutionally, by the Supreme Court.

Actually it isn't.

The court's authority extends only to specific references to the Constitution.

Sadly, that bound has been overstepped from the start, with the court allying with the executive to expand federal power.

As Hamlet said....'More honor'd in the breach than the observance,'

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Really? In 1950 only 15% of those over the age of 65 were eligible for benefits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Day 2 and we still have...

FDR 1
PC 0

"Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”

And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.

How could this happen?

As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors."
2016... The End of Social Security (Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees) - The Sovereign Investor

Coming crash?

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 70 years now

Any day now PC?

For the record, the critics have been right. If anything their predictions have been overly optimistic about the system's prospects. In the 1960s they said it was going insolvent. In 1983, we were months away. In 1977, Jimmy Carter gave America a guarantee that Social Security would last 50 years - 5 years later it was months from insolvency. In 1983, we were assured that the changes would preserve the system into 2060s. 30 years later we are looking at less than 20 years of solvency. Solvency is eroding 50% faster than promise.

Yes, critics whether it is the GOP or not, have said the system was going to be in trouble. Thus far, they have been right about the direction - and only wrong about the speed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've heard the best way to beat Social Security is to marry a big paycheck. How does the OP feel about that strategy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

5. The question is, is there a better plan than the one Roosevelt saddled America with?
Sure is.
Probably a number of 'em.



I received the following, an un-authored email, and took a look at the numbers provided....
...and they seem accurate.




Perhaps those receiving Social Security would compare them to the benefits they currently receive.
Let's start.....


" The government is now referring to our Social Security checks as a "Federal Benefit Payment." This isn't a benefit. It is our money paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too.
It totaled 15% of our income before taxes.

If you averaged $30K per year over your working life, that's close to $180,000 invested in Social Security."




The inept policies of Barack Obama have proven detrimental to American pocketbooks ["Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the 'Recovery' as During the Recession" http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...during-recovery-during-recession_750068.html],
the current ].......median household income is $51,939 Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" President Obama took office in the first quarter of 2009, when median household income was $54,797.63."
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/fact-check-income-losses-under-obama/?_r=0



Democrat policies are as good vis-a-vis Democrat Roosevelt's Social Security as Democrat Obama's have proven to be for the economy.....a failure.



Now...let's inspect the data in that email:
If the average salary over 40 years of a worker's career averaged the $30K noted, @15% Social Security tax (worker plus employer), then it does come to $180,000 kicked in.

Hmmmm......Accurate so far.

Conservatives always have 'better plans'.

'Trickle down' was a better plan (and I already know which cut and paste PC will use against this one - lol, one of her dumbest)

Invading Iraq was a better plan.

Cutting taxes in face of the added cost of 2 wars was a better plan.

Balancing the budget on the backs of poor children and poor seniors was a better plan.

Taking away Medicare and sending Grandma out to fight with insurance company profiteers was a better plan.

Beware of conservatives with better plans, especially when they sound too good to be true -

we all by now should know how to react to too good to be true schemes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Day 2 and we still have...

FDR 1
PC 0

"Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”

And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.

How could this happen?

As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors."
2016... The End of Social Security (Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees) - The Sovereign Investor

Coming crash?

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 70 years now

Any day now PC?

For the record, the critics have been right. If anything their predictions have been overly optimistic about the system's prospects. In the 1960s they said it was going insolvent. In 1983, we were months away. In 1977, Jimmy Carter gave America a guarantee that Social Security would last 50 years - 5 years later it was months from insolvency. In 1983, we were assured that the changes would preserve the system into 2060s. 30 years later we are looking at less than 20 years of solvency. Solvency is eroding 50% faster than promise.

Yes, critics whether it is the GOP or not, have said the system was going to be in trouble. Thus far, they have been right about the direction - and only wrong about the speed.

You're complaining about the 1983 reforms that saved SS for 50 years?

jesus.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Day 2 and we still have...

FDR 1
PC 0

"Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”

And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.

How could this happen?

As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors."
2016... The End of Social Security (Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees) - The Sovereign Investor

Coming crash?

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 70 years now

Any day now PC?

For the record, the critics have been right. If anything their predictions have been overly optimistic about the system's prospects. In the 1960s they said it was going insolvent. In 1983, we were months away. In 1977, Jimmy Carter gave America a guarantee that Social Security would last 50 years - 5 years later it was months from insolvency. In 1983, we were assured that the changes would preserve the system into 2060s. 30 years later we are looking at less than 20 years of solvency. Solvency is eroding 50% faster than promise.

Yes, critics whether it is the GOP or not, have said the system was going to be in trouble. Thus far, they have been right about the direction - and only wrong about the speed.

You're complaining about the 1983 reforms that saved SS for 50 years?

jesus.

I am complaining about people who suggest that the reforms 'worked' much less 'saved' SS. All the changes did was shift on whom the brokenness falls.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Really? In 1950 only 15% of those over the age of 65 were eligible for benefits.

That's one of the sad realities of Social Security.

I don't have my books in front of me, but from what I recall that 15% wasn't even the poorest.

In fact, Social Security has not been all that great for the really poor.....ever.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Day 2 and we still have...

FDR 1
PC 0

"Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”

And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.

How could this happen?

As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors."
2016... The End of Social Security (Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees) - The Sovereign Investor

Coming crash?

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 70 years now

Any day now PC?

For the record, the critics have been right. If anything their predictions have been overly optimistic about the system's prospects. In the 1960s they said it was going insolvent. In 1983, we were months away. In 1977, Jimmy Carter gave America a guarantee that Social Security would last 50 years - 5 years later it was months from insolvency. In 1983, we were assured that the changes would preserve the system into 2060s. 30 years later we are looking at less than 20 years of solvency. Solvency is eroding 50% faster than promise.

Yes, critics whether it is the GOP or not, have said the system was going to be in trouble. Thus far, they have been right about the direction - and only wrong about the speed.

You're complaining about the 1983 reforms that saved SS for 50 years?

jesus.

You might have missed the previous fix, by Carter, in 77-78, that fixed the system for 30 years. Five years later...guess what.....?

Now what was the question ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Day 2 and we still have...

FDR 1
PC 0

"Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”

And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.

How could this happen?

As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors."
2016... The End of Social Security (Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees) - The Sovereign Investor

Coming crash?

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 70 years now

Any day now PC?

For the record, the critics have been right. If anything their predictions have been overly optimistic about the system's prospects. In the 1960s they said it was going insolvent. In 1983, we were months away. In 1977, Jimmy Carter gave America a guarantee that Social Security would last 50 years - 5 years later it was months from insolvency. In 1983, we were assured that the changes would preserve the system into 2060s. 30 years later we are looking at less than 20 years of solvency. Solvency is eroding 50% faster than promise.

Yes, critics whether it is the GOP or not, have said the system was going to be in trouble. Thus far, they have been right about the direction - and only wrong about the speed.

You're complaining about the 1983 reforms that saved SS for 50 years?

jesus.

I am complaining about people who suggest that the reforms 'worked' much less 'saved' SS. All the changes did was shift on whom the brokenness falls.

Everything is great until the Credit Card statement shows up.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Prior to FDR, peoples retirement consisted of having enough kids and hoping one of them would support you in your old age

There was no such thing as retirement. You worked until you were no longer able to work and then hoped you died young

Social Security provided all Americans with a nest egg so they could be protected in their old age

Really? In 1950 only 15% of those over the age of 65 were eligible for benefits.

That's one of the sad realities of Social Security.

I don't have my books in front of me, but from what I recall that 15% wasn't even the poorest.

In fact, Social Security has not been all that great for the really poor.....ever.

You are completely right. I write on the issue, and specifically wrote about the connection of Social Security and poverty. You might like this piece :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

 

[Little-Acorn]

If you log on to the SS website, they can send you a list of every payment you have ever made to Social Security and the date it was paid..

Take that list and try and experiment.

Pick any major private or corporate retirement fund. What if you had made those payments, at those times, to the retirement fund instead of to SS, collecting interest as the years went by at the rates that fund offers? Taking into account the good economic times, the crashes, the recessions etc.?

And if you continue that pattern to the day in the future when you retire, how much would you have at retirement?

Hint: Can you say "millionaire"?

You could live off just the interest when you retire, far better than you could live off what SS gives you.

And when you die, you could will the entire amount you saved, to your family... while SS would give them just a pittance.

Social Security has dispossessed more Americans than all the "Robber Barons", hedge funds, dot-com companies, and CEOs combined, in the history of the world.

 

[regent]

If you log on to the SS website, they can send you a list of every payment you have ever made to Social Security and the date it was paid..

Take that list and try and experiment.

Pick any major private or corporate retirement fund. What if you had made those payments, at those times, to the retirement fund instead of to SS, collecting interest as the years went by at the rates that fund offers? Taking into account the good economic times, the crashes, the recessions etc.?

And if you continue that pattern to the day in the future when you retire, how much would you have at retirement?

Hint: Can you say "millionaire"?

You could live off just the interest when you retire, far better than you could live off what SS gives you.

And when you die, you could will the entire amount you saved, to your family... while SS would give them just a pittance.

Social Security has dispossessed more Americans than all the "Robber Barons", hedge funds, dot-com companies, and CEOs combined, in the history of the world.

Yes. this was during the Great Depression and most people wanted to invest all their excess money they were not using into corporations and other dead things.
FDR knew the Republicans would want to destroy the SS program so it was designed to be so difficult to destroy that it still exists. One of these days Republicans will claim Social Security was their idea and FDR fought it, and some people will believe it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pick any major private or corporate retirement fund. What if you had made those payments, at those times, to the retirement fund instead of to SS, collecting interest as the years went by at the rates that fund offers? Taking into account the good economic times, the crashes, the recessions etc.?

.

]USATODAY.com - Enron's dive destroys workers' pensions

 

[regent]

Pick any major private or corporate retirement fund. What if you had made those payments, at those times, to the retirement fund instead of to SS, collecting interest as the years went by at the rates that fund offers? Taking into account the good economic times, the crashes, the recessions etc.?

.

So why didn't people invest in good retirement plans throughout our history? Since it wasn't against the law people could have invested in a top notch retirement plan even during the Great Depression and there would have been little need for Social Security.
In addition to retirement plans, people could have invested in medical plans, unemployment plans, disability plans and on and on.