Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We have different opinions on the matter. The only way to see for certain what people would prefer would be to allow people to opt out. Then we could observe their preference.
I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.
You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.
And again if we did that it would be a disaster.
It could be structured as follows:
Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.
Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.
The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.
This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.
You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.
And again if we did that it would be a disaster.
It could be structured as follows:
Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.
Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.
The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.
This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
It could be structured as follows:
Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.
Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.
The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.
This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
Conjecture. You have no proof of that.
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
Conjecture. You have no proof of that.
We know now that people aren't saving as inproved with my link. You live in some fantasy land.
I have real numbers of savings. Not sure what your opinion is based on.
You can't opt out of a pay as you go system. If you opt out it is a current retiree who loses benefits, somebody who paid in full. The only way you can get rid of it is for a generation to pay in and never collect.
And again if we did that it would be a disaster.
It could be structured as follows:
Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.
Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.
The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.
This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
It could be structured as follows:
Those who opt out are out of the system. They won't pay SSI tax and they won't receive any benefits.
Those still in the system would continue to pay SSI taxes.
The fed gov would pay benefits to those who reach retirement age until their death, up to the amount they contributed.
This would allow those who have a preference for saving on their own to demonstrate their preference for this option.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
doesn't happen that way sport .. keep trying.
The gov? So you want to add to the debt and have lots of poor old people?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
doesn't happen that way sport .. keep trying.
What doesn't happen what way?
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
doesn't happen that way sport .. keep trying.
What doesn't happen what way?
your SS account going to other people ... no rights violation.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
Conjecture. You have no proof of that.
We know now that people aren't saving as inproved with my link. You live in some fantasy land.
That is only under the current SSI scheme. It's conjecture that they wouldn't save when they are responsible for doing so.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
doesn't happen that way sport .. keep trying.
What doesn't happen what way?
your SS account going to other people ... no rights violation.
It's taking one person's property to fund another person's retirement.
Of course a percentage of responsible adults will invest and save... There will also be a rather large percent of the population that doesn't save... This will end up leading to a very hard situation when we have a ton of broke elderly people with medical needs. How then do we handle the situation?I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.
No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.
Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?
Why do you think that?
One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts
Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.
Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
Conjecture. You have no proof of that.
We know now that people aren't saving as inproved with my link. You live in some fantasy land.
That is only under the current SSI scheme. It's conjecture that they wouldn't save when they are responsible for doing so.
We know people don't save well for retirement. It is conjecture that they would without SS. Many already think there will be no SS, yet they don't save.
Of course a percentage of responsible adults will invest and save... There will also be a rather large percent of the population that doesn't save... This will end up leading to a very hard situation when we have a ton of broke elderly people with medical needs. How then do we handle the situation?I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.
Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?
Why do you think that?
One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts
Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.
Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.
Unless it wishes to reneg on the promise it made, the fedgov is responsible to pay people what they paid in. That was the deal.
But the sooner this ponzi scheme is phased out, the better. The longer it goes on, the more painful it will be to stop.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
It's not really my concern whether people are good savers or not. It IS my concern that the government takes the property of one person and gives it to another. That's a violation of property rights, and that's why I oppose social security.
doesn't happen that way sport .. keep trying.
What doesn't happen what way?
your SS account going to other people ... no rights violation.
It's taking one person's property to fund another person's retirement.
How is it a ponzi scheme? It has been working rather well. Without it we will have lots of people with nothing for retirement. Still waiting on any proof why they will suddenly become great savers.
You have a strange definition of well. The system has collected $17 trillion in total revenue. In exchange it has created $25 trillion in promises that it doesn't expect to keep. For every dollar that the system has ever collected it has created $1.50 of promise that it can't keep. That isn't a demographic problem. It is a politicians promise to much to voters problem.
So you want to get rid of it and don't care of he consequences, I see. Well it would lead to lots of poor old people and that would be very bad.
Conjecture. You have no proof of that.
We know now that people aren't saving as inproved with my link. You live in some fantasy land.
That is only under the current SSI scheme. It's conjecture that they wouldn't save when they are responsible for doing so.
We know people don't save well for retirement. It is conjecture that they would without SS. Many already think there will be no SS, yet they don't save.
Again, how other people conduct their lives is not my concern.
The thing about old people is that they don't always make the choice to retire. if they are laid off or have medical issues you are stuck with the same situation that I described. So how do we deal with it as a country?Of course a percentage of responsible adults will invest and save... There will also be a rather large percent of the population that doesn't save... This will end up leading to a very hard situation when we have a ton of broke elderly people with medical needs. How then do we handle the situation?I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.
Really? When at the end of their working lives they will have a lifetime of savings packed away?
Why do you think that?
One chart will show you how much everyone else has saved in their retirement accounts
Ive not seen any evidence people are very good at that. I'm pretty sure the age of no pensions is going to be a disaster.
Right now, people expect to get SSI, so they don't feel the need to save. Once SSI is phased out, that will change.
If they haven't saved then they will be in no position to retire
