How to fix SS Trump style

[Conservative65]

SS is nothing more than another handout program where those on the lower income end of life will get something far greater in return than they ever put in. Those on the upper income end are the ones funding the system. Without them, the system would fail financially. That's why they're required to be a part of it. It's just another way someone that makes if financially has to support those that didn't.

This is the standard conservative angle:

Rich are overburdened, poor are not pulling their weight. Let give rich tax cuts and tax the poor more.

Of course not a single politician is crazy enough to explicitly take up this position, but that's the out-on-the-moon base they have to work with. And then you wonder why they all lie to you.

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

 

[AntonToo]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

...a program is designed to ensure that elderly and disabled are not in severe poverty and will obviously benefit the least those that are already financially well off.

Is there a point you are making that I'm under-appreciating?

Do you have in mind a better way to do this?

 

[Conservative65]

I fully understand how it works. Those working today fund the system for those receiving today and those receiving today funded the system for those receiving before them. Since the contributions and distributions are based on income, discussing things related to income are directly in line with it.

I'm saying those that want to opt out should be able to opt out. That doesn't mean it should be disbanded it means those that don't want to be a part of it shouldn't be forced to be a part of it and accept that if they choose not to do themselves, they do without later.

And what happens when they miscalculate and are broke by their 65th? Are we now going to jump in a bail them all the same or maybe let them wallow in poverty and all the problems that causes?

No, we the taxpayers don't bail them out. Bleeding hearts who believe the mistakes of one should be offset by the money of another can do it voluntarily. It is not and never should be one person's place to be FORCED to pay for another person's mistakes.

 

[AntonToo]

No, we the taxpayers don't bail them out. Bleeding hearts who believe the mistakes of one should be offset by the money of another can do it voluntarily. It is not and never should be one person's place to be FORCED to pay for another person's mistakes.

But voluntary doesn't work.

Voluntary charity doesn't work and voluntary responsibility doesn't work and the ultimate result of your proposal is more poverty for less taxes - a trade-off that's not going to make America better.

There is not a single developed country without safety net programs like SS - there actually IS a good reason for that. Conservative claims that everything could be better without them sound like utopian fantasies.

 

[Conservative65]

The lower income people get far more of a benefit from SS than a person contributing at the max income level.

...a program is designed to ensure that elderly and disabled are not in severe poverty and will obviously benefit the least those that are already financially well off.

Is there a point you are making that I'm under-appreciating?

Do you have in mind a better way to do this?

I've made the point. The higher income are forced to contribute to a system that benefits on a higher proportional scale the lower income earners.

Two people start working at the same time. One contributes at the minimum wage amount and one contributes at the max amount whatever it may be at that time. They both start receiving SS at the same time. When calculations are done, it is determined Person A contributed at a rate 5x greater than Person B. Does Person A get 5x the monthly distribution as Person B since they put in at a 5x greater amount? Unless your answer is yes, my point that lower income benefit on a higher proportional scale than higher income stands.

I have a better way. Give people the ability to opt out and if they don't do themselves, tough shit.

 

[SwimExpert]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans .

False, but indicative of your lack of knowledge.

Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Well that's their fucking problem. Make your bed, lie in it, and die in it.

 

[Conservative65]

No, we the taxpayers don't bail them out. Bleeding hearts who believe the mistakes of one should be offset by the money of another can do it voluntarily. It is not and never should be one person's place to be FORCED to pay for another person's mistakes.

But voluntary doesn't work.

Voluntary charity doesn't work and voluntary responsibility doesn't work and the ultimate result of your proposal is more poverty for less taxes - a trade-off that's not going to make America better.

There is not a single developed country without safety net programs like SS - there actually IS a good reason for that. Conservative claims that everything could be better without them sound like utopian fantasies.

Then let those not being responsible do without if they aren't. It's not the place of one group to offset the irresponsible choices of another.

Things would be better if people took responsibility for themselves instead of expecting the government to look out for them. If people choose not to do so, SS isn't a safety but a way for those that are responsible to be forced to support those that aren't. A safety net is when people truly CAN'T not when people DON'T. There is a difference.

If you need help and truly can't help yourself or your situation is one where, by no fault of your own, you can't do for yourself, I'll help you. If you need help because you won't help yourself or your own actions produced the results for which you need help, I'll let you do without.

I won't let someone that truly can't work go without but I'll damn sure walk by someone that won't work and not give it a second thought.

 

[Conservative65]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans .

False, but indicative of your lack of knowledge.

Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

Well that's their fucking problem. Make your bed, lie in it, and die in it.

That's what too many don't get. Too many believe that the failure of one person to do something they should be doing is the responsibility of another to offset when the results of the first person are negative.

One called social security a safety net. Safety nets are for those who, by no fault of their own, are in a situation where they need help. When the situation is a result of choices the person made, it becomes an enabling device.

 

[AntonToo]

No, we the taxpayers don't bail them out. Bleeding hearts who believe the mistakes of one should be offset by the money of another can do it voluntarily. It is not and never should be one person's place to be FORCED to pay for another person's mistakes.

But voluntary doesn't work.

Voluntary charity doesn't work and voluntary responsibility doesn't work and the ultimate result of your proposal is more poverty for less taxes - a trade-off that's not going to make America better.

There is not a single developed country without safety net programs like SS - there actually IS a good reason for that. Conservative claims that everything could be better without them sound like utopian fantasies.

Then let those not being responsible do without if they aren't. It's not the place of one group to offset the irresponsible choices of another.

Things would be better if people took responsibility for themselves instead of expecting the government to look out for them. If people choose not to do so, SS isn't a safety but a way for those that are responsible to be forced to support those that aren't. A safety net is when people truly CAN'T not when people DON'T. There is a difference.

If you need help and truly can't help yourself or your situation is one where, by no fault of your own, you can't do for yourself, I'll help you. If you need help because you won't help yourself or your own actions produced the results for which you need help, I'll let you do without.

I won't let someone that truly can't work go without but I'll damn sure walk by someone that won't work and not give it a second thought.

And how exactly does a bureaucracy realistically parse "can't" from "don't" without drowning in procedural complexity? It's not realistic.

Besides that, people make a lot of mistakes, especially when it comes to something so long term as retirement planning. A good system reasonably accounts and minimally addresses that nature and yes, forces them to effectively save up a portion of their income for retirement. Good system like SS.

 

[Conservative65]

No, we the taxpayers don't bail them out. Bleeding hearts who believe the mistakes of one should be offset by the money of another can do it voluntarily. It is not and never should be one person's place to be FORCED to pay for another person's mistakes.

But voluntary doesn't work.

Voluntary charity doesn't work and voluntary responsibility doesn't work and the ultimate result of your proposal is more poverty for less taxes - a trade-off that's not going to make America better.

There is not a single developed country without safety net programs like SS - there actually IS a good reason for that. Conservative claims that everything could be better without them sound like utopian fantasies.

Then let those not being responsible do without if they aren't. It's not the place of one group to offset the irresponsible choices of another.

Things would be better if people took responsibility for themselves instead of expecting the government to look out for them. If people choose not to do so, SS isn't a safety but a way for those that are responsible to be forced to support those that aren't. A safety net is when people truly CAN'T not when people DON'T. There is a difference.

If you need help and truly can't help yourself or your situation is one where, by no fault of your own, you can't do for yourself, I'll help you. If you need help because you won't help yourself or your own actions produced the results for which you need help, I'll let you do without.

I won't let someone that truly can't work go without but I'll damn sure walk by someone that won't work and not give it a second thought.

And how exactly does a bureaucracy realistically parse "can't" from "don't" without drowning in procedural complexity? It's not realistic.

Besides that, people make a lot of mistakes, especially when it comes to something so long term as retirement planning. A good system reasonably accounts and minimally addresses that nature. Good system like SS.

They seem to do it when it comes to other programs.

Again, not one group's place to offset mistakes by another group. Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine. A good system holds those making the mistakes accountable for their mistakes not someone else that didn't make them.

 

[AntonToo]

They seem to do it when it comes to other programs.

For example?

 

[AntonToo]

I have a better way. Give people the ability to opt out and if they don't do themselves, tough shit.

A lot will not do it themselves. You know that.

Maybe fine by your narrow understanding of self-interest, but I don't think that is ultimately good for me or our society. I'm one of those crazies with concern for my fellow Americans.

 

[Timmy]

SS is an insurance policy for Americans . Cause we all know americans don't save shit for retirement and don't bother getting disability insurance .

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

There is an income cap on which SS is paid. Without looking, I don't recall the exact amount but it's somewhere just shy of $120,000.

Person A contributes over his/her working lifetime at an average income amount that is 5x more than the average income for which Person B contributes over his/her lifetime. Should Person A get 5x the monthly distribution of Person B? Does Person A get 5x more/month than Person B because they put in at a 5x greater amount?

What happens if you get some horrible cancer that wipes out your finances and insurance?

As Americans we feel it's better to have SS, rather than have scores of homeless and sick old folks begging on every street corner.

 

[whitehall]

President Bush tried to "fix" social security by allowing people to invest a small portion of the confiscated Fica tax and democrats screamed because they wanted it all to squander on useless programs designed to keep minorities in poverty and voting for democrats. Here we are about 7 1/2 years into the useless freaking Obama administration and the left is blaming Trump already. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

 

[Timmy]

President Bush tried to "fix" social security by allowing people to invest a small portion of the confiscated Fica tax and democrats screamed because they wanted it all to squander on useless programs designed to keep minorities in poverty and voting for democrats. Here we are about 7 1/2 years into the useless freaking Obama administration and the left is blaming Trump already. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Call us when you come back from planet Delusion.

 

[Conservative65]

I guess all that I've been setting aside for retirement and the short term/long term disability insurance premiums I pay really haven't been going to retirement and those policies.

It's not the government's job to force you to buy any kind of insurance.

If people don't, that's their problem and not the place of government to hold their hand. You may need the government to do so but many of us don't.

What about auto insurance? Every state requires it.

Understand, SS isn't retirement insurance. It is old-age insurance. These are very different things. One insures you if you fail to save. The other pays you a small amount of liquidity so that you can plan your retirement.

My state requires auto insurance. However, there is a big difference in the reason behind what they require be purchased and the reason Timmy gave for SS being in place. Can you tell me?

Elaborate on the big difference. Insurance manages the cost of realized risk. You don't know how many auto wrecks that you will have so you buy insurance. You don't know how long you will live so you buy old-age insurance. Social Security carries more benefits than just old-age insurance, but the primary benefit is old-age insurance.

In my State, the only type of auto insurance required is liability. That isn't designed to protect me, it's designed to protect the other guy in case I'm at fault. Based on Timmy's reasoning behind supporting SS, it's designed to protect me.

I have save and invested so that I can provide for myself in older age. Unlike people who defend SS, I don't need the government forcing me to buy something I don't need. When I reach the age where I can start getting distributions, I will take it but it won't be because I need it. It will be because I was required to be a part of it and will gladly take it even if someone else needs it more.

Like I said to Timmy. The ONLY reason people aren't allowed to opt out is the government knows those doing so are the ones that truly fund the system, those on the higher end of the income scale. Without us, those on the lower end wouldn't have a pot to piss in and someone it would be seen as our fault because we didn't want to be forced to fund a system that provides many of them with the only thing they'll ever have for money when they get old.

There is an income cap on which SS is paid. Without looking, I don't recall the exact amount but it's somewhere just shy of $120,000.

Person A contributes over his/her working lifetime at an average income amount that is 5x more than the average income for which Person B contributes over his/her lifetime. Should Person A get 5x the monthly distribution of Person B? Does Person A get 5x more/month than Person B because they put in at a 5x greater amount?

What happens if you get some horrible cancer that wipes out your finances and insurance?

As Americans we feel it's better to have SS, rather than have scores of homeless and sick old folks begging on every street corner.

You don't speak for all Americans, only yourself. All those who finances are wiped out, homeless, and sick are opportunities for you to prove you truly care. If you actually did, you'd find as many as you could and give them YOUR money. Saying you care then supporting someone else being forced to fund it isn't caring. You can't claim compassion using someone else's money.

 

[Conservative65]

President Bush tried to "fix" social security by allowing people to invest a small portion of the confiscated Fica tax and democrats screamed because they wanted it all to squander on useless programs designed to keep minorities in poverty and voting for democrats. Here we are about 7 1/2 years into the useless freaking Obama administration and the left is blaming Trump already. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

Call us when you come back from planet Delusion.

Call us when you and the rest of the bleeding hearts are willing to prove your compassion rather than claiming it because you supports others being forced to fund what you think should be in place.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security

Let's start with three people. We'll call them Paul, Ringo, and George. All three are healthy, young, and entering the workforce at the age of 25 years. All three earn $100 per week, or $5200 a year. Aside from other normal taxes, 6.2% of their paycheck goes to Social Security, with their employer paying another 6.2% as required by law. Let's put all of this SS money into a pot which is allocated for these three people. Now, as time goes on inflation happen and the cost of living goes up. Paul, Ringo, and George all get 4% cost of living raises every year. By the time they are 65, they are making $16,962.60 per year.

All three men retire after their 65th year, having spent 40 years contributing to the SS pot. That pot is now $152,166.27. That breaks down to $50,722.09 of contributions per person, though half of that was contributed by their employer. But there's a problem that arises already. You see, over the years maintaining the SS program has cost money. There are administrative costs. SSA employee salaries, building costs, office supplies, etc. It's about 20% of the contributions, so the pot is actually only worth $40,577.67 per person ($121,733.02 total).

Now that each person is retired, it's time to start paying out to these men. The payout is 40% of their average income. Their average yearly income over their 40 years turns out to be $10,226.23. Thus, their payout in their first year is $4090.49. But SS gets a cost of living raise every year as well. Each year the amount increases by 4% which depletes the pot faster.

If all three men live to be 75 years old, their specially designated pot has gone into the red by $5399.40. Of course, who really knows for sure how long either will live? Let's say for a moment that Paul dies in the first day of his retirement. He basically never collects a single cent of that SS money he contributed over the years. What happens to it? Well, he's never going to see it, that's for sure. It stays in the pot. Next to die is Ringo, at the age of 70 years. By this point he's used about $17,400 of his contribution, which is almost one half after administrative costs were deducted. The remaining stays in the pot. This now leaves only George.

George is a healthy and lives a very long life. He always exercised. Ate healthy. Never smoked, only fucked the clean hookers, whatever. Whatever the reason, George is still kicking at 82 years old, drawing from that SS pot. But, George is about to be in a pickle. Because at the age of 82, that SS pot, which included half of Ringo's contributions and all of Paul's contributions, is about to be empty. There will be no more money next year. George lives to be 90 years old, and for the remainder of his years he receives a Social Security check, and in total the pot for the three goes $70,000 in the red. But how is that possible if the pot is now empty? Because, it turns out that Social Security isn't a pot after all. It's not an investment, and it doesn't "pay out." The politicians tell you that it works like that, but it actually doesn't. It's carefully constructed to imitate a contribution/payout model on its surface. But at the end of the day, it's just a tax and entitlement program.

Congress imitates a contribution/payout model by basing your entitlement amount on your average income over your lifetime. This creates a superficial sense of a contribution based payout. It's a cleverly laid out word game. Your contributions are based on your income, your payout is based on your income, therefore your payout is based on your contributions. It's a blatant illogical line of reasoning. It is a logical fallacy that even has a special name known as the Politicians Fallacy.

To highlight this, let's put it in standard form:
All "contributions" are income based
All "payouts" are income based
Therefore, all payouts are contribution based.

This is what's known as an AAA-2 form, and commits the undistributed middle fallacy.

As it turns out, Social Security is not a contribution/payout system. It is a tax/welfare entitlement system. It doesn't matter how much you pay in SS tax in your lifetime. Your ability to collect Social Security welfare will not diminish if your lifetime taxation has been met. You have no control over the amount of your entitlement. The funds do not belong to you, they are given by the grace of the government, and you only receive what Congress decides you're entitled to, and when. Nor will your estate ever be able to retain any value from your lifetime Social Security taxation if you should happen to die before you consume an amount in welfare equivalent to your taxation. You have no property rights over the Social Security taxes you've paid.

A true contribution/payout retirement fund is 100% based on your contributions (including returns), and is 100% at your control upon retirement. You can decide how much to withdraw, and when to do so. If you die your money becomes part of your estate and become the property of your heirs (you have property rights over the fund). Social Security is a very different system.

And the worst part is that even after mandating your employer match the 6.2% you are taxed Social Security gives you less for your money than if you had simply had the chance to invest your 6.2% into a typical retirement fund.

To explain that, let's look at our fourth worker, named John. John is just like Paul, Ringo, and George. He's the same age, makes the same amount of money. He gets the same COL raise every year. The only difference is that John isn't being taxed by Social Security, nor is John's boss paying SS tax on John. Instead, John invests 6.2% of his income into a personal retirement account. His boss matches the same 6.2% into the account. While John is young he has the account invested in stocks, returning 10% a year, which is naturally reinvested into the account. When John reaches 45 years, he re-diverts the funds into safe mutual bonds that only return 5% a year. John retires at the same age as the rest, with a retirement fund of more than $180,000 just for himself. If John withdraws the same amount that Paul, Ringo, and George are paid from Social Security (including the same yearly COL increases), his fund will continue to grow slightly each year until he's 99, and he'll never run out of money unless he lives to be older than 121 years. If John lives to be 100 years old, he will die with more than $300,000 to pass on to his heirs. Of course, with those kinds of resources available to him John might be inclined to provide himself a more comfortable allowance. Even if John withdraws twice the amount SS would have been paying him, he'd easily have enough money to carry him through until he's 90 years old.

 

[Conservative65]

I have a better way. Give people the ability to opt out and if they don't do themselves, tough shit.

A lot will not do it themselves. You know that.

Maybe fine by your narrow understanding of self-interest, but I don't think that is ultimately good for me or our society. I'm one of those crazies with concern for my fellow Americans.

That doesn't, by default, mean the rest of us should be forced to do it on their behalf so they can have something.

Damn right it's about my self interest and that makes me no different than those you say won't do then expect the rest of us to be part of a system so they can have something later in life. They're looking out for themselves and you have no problem with that.

It's not and never will be the responsibility of one group to look out for ADULTS that know better but don't do what they're supposed to do. If you want to call that looking out for Americans, the only thing you're willing to do is let some freeloader not be responsible then look out for their slack sense of responsibility. If you truly had concern for them, you'd want them to learn responsibility rather than enabling them to be irresponsible.

 

[Conservative65]

They seem to do it when it comes to other programs.

For example?

Every means tested social welfare program makes determinations of whether or not someone meets a standard to qualify. If those programs can do it, surely it can be done here unless you're willing to admit the way those other programs make determinations is faulty.