Social Security. Get Rid Of It.

[cpwill]

I'm very, truly sorry that you are disabled. My question was genuine and no offense was intended. I think you applied for what we call Disability which is part of the SS system. That's the misunderstanding. I had no idea that political affiliation had anything to do with disability or SS. When I applied for SS at age 66, no questions were asked of that nature. I suggest you get an attorney because I feel that this is totally bogus to deny you based on your politics. Good luck and best wishes.

Actually it's not. Fleming v Nestor. Though I sincerely doubt 247ina is the defendant in that case.

 

[armor99]

It's possible, but in our consumer culture, I'd venture that many people just put it off and spend today until that day comes and it's too late. The problem with the whole libertarian approach here is that libertarians who advocate this assume everyone is rational when it comes to their long term finances. In an ideal world that would be true. That's not the world we live in today.

What I'd like to see is the retirement savings of those who generate most of their income under the table since they're not getting any social security.

Furthermore, that doesn't deal with those who get wiped out by a medical incident. It seems patently unfair to throw someone out into the cold who saved for many years but had a single medical problem that wiped them out. Remember that the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America is medical costs.

Your arguements are good ones. Being out of work for such a long time.... I can see the appeal. I am not always sure the best course of action. But I do resent having to take care of people that have chosen to be irresponsible for their entire lives. At the same time.... I do not have a problem taking care of those who were unfortunate, but did their level best to avoid such problems. But how do you help one group, while not enabling the other? That is a good question that I am not sure I have the answer to.

 

[obvious Child]

Your arguements are good ones. Being out of work for such a long time.... I can see the appeal. I am not always sure the best course of action. But I do resent having to take care of people that have chosen to be irresponsible for their entire lives. At the same time.... I do not have a problem taking care of those who were unfortunate, but did their level best to avoid such problems. But how do you help one group, while not enabling the other? That is a good question that I am not sure I have the answer to.

No offense, but I'm pretty much done with this thread. I proved that Jay is all for leaving the elderly out to die in the streets homeless. That's really all I came for.

The problem with people like Jay is that they assume a world where everything goes according to plan. That you'll be fine as long as you save. To us adults, that's pretty much bull****. Unless we are willing to do what Jay wants and leave the elderly out to die in the streets homeless, I don't see another choice that doesn't make us horrible people. It forcing people to save against their will bad? Yes. It is worse for society to let those who have had bad luck, or bad investments die homeless? Absolutely.

There will always be freeloaders and the irresponsible. But we can't reasonably help the group that needs it because of an incident out of their hands and the group that was just irresponsible.

 

[armor99]

It sorta sounds like you think everyone can be a millionaire....

Yes... I do.... If you save enough.... and have enough time. Almost anyone can do it.... really... I know that past performance of the stock market is not a guarantee of things to come in the future. But.... if you take any 30 year period of the stock market(about the span of a persons working life), I do not believe there is any other investment that is consistantly better.

If someone makes the US average which is 47k/year, and you start saving 15% of that every year.... assuming an average of 8% growth a year (obviously some years are much worse... others much better, but over 30 years the market usually does about that), why is that impossible?....

Just because I am a numbers guy... I went to the following site...

Compound Interest Calculator

So starting with an initial investment of $7050 (which is 15% of 47k) adding $7050 every year for 30 years.... with an average return of 8% comes out to $933,480.10 So why is becomming a millionaire such a stretch of the imagination? Now I did not say that saving 15% of your salary was easy.... or even that EVERYONE makes at least 47k. But on average... more often than not... if this was a priority in you life to do this..... looks like most people could. Am I really that far off the mark here?

 

[JayDubya]

It forcing people to save against their will bad?

Yes.

It is worse for society to let those who have had bad luck, or bad investments die homeless?

No.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes.

No.

That's not exactly a rebuttal that you aren't for letting the elderly die in the streets homeless. But at this point, it's not like there isn't irrefutable evidence you stand for that.

 

[JayDubya]

That's not exactly a rebuttal that you aren't for letting the elderly die in the streets homeless.

Well the rebuttal for that is that I'm not for that. I'm for charity and altruism, just not coerced "charity."

The coercion is wrong and you admit it. I don't think there's much more to be said once you've conceded that. Your ends do not justify the means, and they are simply not necessary.

 

[armor99]

No offense, but I'm pretty much done with this thread. I proved that Jay is all for leaving the elderly out to die in the streets homeless. That's really all I came for.

The problem with people like Jay is that they assume a world where everything goes according to plan. That you'll be fine as long as you save. To us adults, that's pretty much bull****. Unless we are willing to do what Jay wants and leave the elderly out to die in the streets homeless, I don't see another choice that doesn't make us horrible people. It forcing people to save against their will bad? Yes. It is worse for society to let those who have had bad luck, or bad investments die homeless? Absolutely.

There will always be freeloaders and the irresponsible. But we can't reasonably help the group that needs it because of an incident out of their hands and the group that was just irresponsible.

Ok.... so you beleive force is completely acceptable as long as the "greater good" is served. So under that definition we could also ban all unheathy foods, tobacco, alcohol, and begin mandatory excercise programs so that people do not become obese. And if you did all of those things, people might very well live longer lives. But who's life is it really then? Does your life belong to you.... or is your life owned by the state? What if your idea of the perfect life is to die at 45 with a BigMac in both hands? Who are you to claim that one lifestyle is better or worse than another? Would living to 90 vs 45 be a happier life just because you lived longer? And therein lies the problem. Every persons definition of what brings them happiness will be different. And that is why I have a problem with the notion of the "common good". It means something different to everyone.

 

[obvious Child]

Well the rebuttal for that is that I'm not for that. I'm for charity and altruism, just not coerced "charity."

We've already gone over how charity cannot handle a caseload like the baby boomers who have saved less then two year's cost of living savings. You keep pretending this isn't the case.

The coercion is wrong and you admit it. I don't think there's much more to be said once you've conceded that. Your ends do not justify the means, and they are simply not necessary.

Excuse me for being a human being who doesn't think it's right to leave those who had incidents out of their control which wiped out their savings out in the cold to die homeless.

You clearly don't like the fact that I'm pointing out where your proposal leads but it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It just means you are unable to admit it.

Nothing you have said here at all disproves my statement about your proposal.

I'm proven without a doubt that you are for letting the elderly die in the streets homeless. Nothing you have said here even comes close to addressing that. You claim charity but constantly ignoring the discussion about how it cannot handle the caseloads. Your belief that your proposal won't result in my assertion is a fairytale.

 

[obvious Child]

Ok.... so you beleive force is completely acceptable as long as the "greater good" is served.

Depends on the outcomes and potential solutions. Is Jay's proposal where we let the elderly die in the streets homeless because we don't want to force them to save a little every pay check wrong? In my opinion yes. Furthermore, it's actually more expensive considering that they're going to kill us on emergency treatment costs. So unless we legislate that hospitals can refuse lifesaving treatment, we're going to get screwed financially under Jay's proposal.

So under that definition we could also ban all unheathy foods, tobacco, alcohol, and begin mandatory excercise programs so that people do not become obese.

Nope. We just let insurance companies jack up your rates. I have no problems with health insurance increasing your rates for your bad habits. In fact, I think that is the PERFECT way to do it. The same way that car insurance goes crazy high when you're a scary driver. You pay for your own risks. I don't see how we can do that with elderly costs of living that way. Letting insurance factor in your risks will take care of most issues in a responsible way.

The rest of your post isn't relevant as it's dependent upon an assumption that isn't true.

 

[JayDubya]

We've already gone over how charity cannot handle a caseload like the baby boomers who have saved less then two year's cost of living savings.

Yes, I recall you saying so. I recall expressing skepticism of your unqualified claim.

Excuse me for being a human being who doesn't think it's right to leave those who had incidents out of their control which wiped out their savings out in the cold to die homeless.

Maybe I don't think it's right either, that's why I support private charity? Hrm?

 

[Chelsea]

People who live off of minimum wage and have a family can't save and if they can, not nearly enough. With two parents working minimun wage jobs 40-60 hours a week thats between $250-$300 a week after taxes so benefit of the doubt theyre both getting 60 hours a week and make overtime so they get about $800 a week combined. They have a modest family of two kids and lets say pay $100 every two weeks for the kids insurance. So theres $3000 a month disposable income. A modest 2 bedroom apartment is $800 ( this is all based off of southern NV) so they hacve $2200. utilities leave them with $2000 if you round to $100 per bill. car insurance could be $100 (we pay more) so theres $1900 a month. $200 ($50 per week) on gas, assuming one car and we have $1700 left for the month. Then we have food at $150 per week so now theres $1100 left. Kids have other needs depending on age so lets say our family has a 1 year old and 5 year old. Diapers, cups, wipes, and new clothes for when they grow out of them can cost between $300-$500 a month for both. so we will take $400 off and leave us with $700 in the month. You can save all but the monthly costs for doctor copays, toiletries/household items, and the little items you need (out of ketchup or your 5 year old needs new pencils or paper for school) so you may be able to save $500 a month, but one bad medical bill, a broken down car, or little Johnny goes into high school and needs more expensive school supplies etc... and that $500 expendible income is gone. Not to mention in this scenario mom and dad aren't on a health insurance plan and the fact of the matter is that moast minimum wage employees only work part time and rarely ever 60 hours a week so in reality these families are poorer, on welfare and literally unable to save a dime towards retirement.


Let's not forget that this scenario is what is becoming of our Middle Class Americans right now. How can someone save up enough to headoff retirement on $8, $9, or even $10 an hour, support a family, or even themselves? Even a single man or woman making minimum wage can't save enough for retirement right now. And what they may be able to save, wouldn't last against inflation when they're 65. They either need SS or a program like it or Gramie and Grandpa will be spending thw golden years in a cardboard box down on 10th ave.

 

[obvious Child]

Yes, I recall you saying so. I recall expressing skepticism of your unqualified claim.

You claimed charity. I asked you to explain how it can handle such a large caseload. You ran from explaining it. I then explained the problem of the massive caseload to which you called it wrong and left it at that with no rebuttal at all. Do I need to remind you of your colossal failure?

Maybe I don't think it's right either, that's why I support private charity? Hrm?

Nope. Because you are under the asinine assumption that charity that cannot even handle homeless kids can somehow handle millions of high medical cost seniors. Magic eh?

 

[JayDubya]

You claimed charity. I asked you to explain how it can handle such a large caseload.

/shrug All you did was naysay.

 

[obvious Child]

/shrug All you did was naysay.

And this kids, I present to you, is Jay's argument.

"You're wrong....Because I say so!"

 

[JayDubya]

I think you're confused there, friend. That was your actual argument.

"Voluntary charity isn't good enough because it won't be good enough and you're a horrible person because you want to kick grandma in the face!1~!1~1!!!1one"

 

[obvious Child]

I think you're confused there, friend. That was your actual argument.

"Voluntary charity isn't good enough because it won't be good enough and you're a horrible person because you want to kick grandma in the face!1~!1~1!!!1one"

Um no.

Helps to actually read what I wrote.

I argued that a system that is already overtaxed by its caseloads will not be able to handle millions of babyboomers who have saved on average $30,000 which will not last more then a few years, especially with medical costs. If we remove Social Security, many of those people will have no income. While many will get some help, there are 10,000 retiring every day. How you expect a system that cannot even care for homeless kids can somehow manage to accommodate millions of high cost seniors is nothing more than magic.

Your reply? "Nonsense."

Seriously, keep talking. Just keep adding evidence to how you think the elderly should die homeless. Seriously. Keep talking.

 

[JayDubya]

Just keep adding evidence to how you think the elderly should die homeless.

Oh you mean like how I don't think that at all?

 

[obvious Child]

Oh you mean like how I don't think that at all?

Oh you mean like how you cowardly flee every single time from ever providing an alternative as to why it won't happen under your proposal?

Let's see. You are ardently for removing social security.
You provide an entirely magical argument as to why this won't lead to the elderly dying in the street homeless. You get your magical argument shredded and refuse to provide any rebuttals. You still cling to your proposal. End conclusion? You are for the end result of your proposal: leaving the elderly to die in the street homeless.

 

[JayDubya]

Let's see. You are ardently for removing social security.

Yes, I oppose coerced charity.

I support voluntary charity.

Funny, I thought we've been through this.

Did you need me to go over it again? Okay. Read this post again.

 

[armor99]

People who live off of minimum wage and have a family can't save and if they can, not nearly enough. With two parents working minimun wage jobs 40-60 hours a week thats between $250-$300 a week after taxes so benefit of the doubt theyre both getting 60 hours a week and make overtime so they get about $800 a week combined. They have a modest family of two kids and lets say pay $100 every two weeks for the kids insurance. So theres $3000 a month disposable income. A modest 2 bedroom apartment is $800 ( this is all based off of southern NV) so they hacve $2200. utilities leave them with $2000 if you round to $100 per bill. car insurance could be $100 (we pay more) so theres $1900 a month. $200 ($50 per week) on gas, assuming one car and we have $1700 left for the month. Then we have food at $150 per week so now theres $1100 left. Kids have other needs depending on age so lets say our family has a 1 year old and 5 year old. Diapers, cups, wipes, and new clothes for when they grow out of them can cost between $300-$500 a month for both. so we will take $400 off and leave us with $700 in the month. You can save all but the monthly costs for doctor copays, toiletries/household items, and the little items you need (out of ketchup or your 5 year old needs new pencils or paper for school) so you may be able to save $500 a month, but one bad medical bill, a broken down car, or little Johnny goes into high school and needs more expensive school supplies etc... and that $500 expendible income is gone. Not to mention in this scenario mom and dad aren't on a health insurance plan and the fact of the matter is that moast minimum wage employees only work part time and rarely ever 60 hours a week so in reality these families are poorer, on welfare and literally unable to save a dime towards retirement.


Let's not forget that this scenario is what is becoming of our Middle Class Americans right now. How can someone save up enough to headoff retirement on $8, $9, or even $10 an hour, support a family, or even themselves? Even a single man or woman making minimum wage can't save enough for retirement right now. And what they may be able to save, wouldn't last against inflation when they're 65. They either need SS or a program like it or Gramie and Grandpa will be spending thw golden years in a cardboard box down on 10th ave.

Why did people who make minimum wage choose to have a family they could not afford? For every bad situation out there.... there are a whole host of bad decisions that went along with it. Why do you assume that a couple would only be capable of making minimum wage? Seems a bit of a stretch....

 

[armor99]

Depends on the outcomes and potential solutions. Is Jay's proposal where we let the elderly die in the streets homeless because we don't want to force them to save a little every pay check wrong? In my opinion yes. Furthermore, it's actually more expensive considering that they're going to kill us on emergency treatment costs. So unless we legislate that hospitals can refuse lifesaving treatment, we're going to get screwed financially under Jay's proposal.



Nope. We just let insurance companies jack up your rates. I have no problems with health insurance increasing your rates for your bad habits. In fact, I think that is the PERFECT way to do it. The same way that car insurance goes crazy high when you're a scary driver. You pay for your own risks. I don't see how we can do that with elderly costs of living that way. Letting insurance factor in your risks will take care of most issues in a responsible way.

The rest of your post isn't relevant as it's dependent upon an assumption that isn't true.

Is it not also a risk to live most of your life without saving enough to retire on?

 

[Chelsea]

Why did people who make minimum wage choose to have a family they could not afford? For every bad situation out there.... there are a whole host of bad decisions that went along with it. Why do you assume that a couple would only be capable of making minimum wage? Seems a bit of a stretch....

I was averaging my friends and I out. One of my friends ahas 4 kids, one aas three, I have three, and several have one child each. The most any of us has made was $10/hr, but more often than not its a menial $8.25-$9/hr. That's including my friend who is a manager of taco bell, myself a college graduate, and my friends making $8.25 at jobs like Cicis pizza or Chuck E Cheese. Average out hours its modestly 35 hours a week.

Why do we have large families? Mine is failed birth control 3xs running, trust me I almost died on the operating table with my last child who was a preemie due to preeclampsia. And it was on an implant so I didn't forget to take it, my first was the shot depo, and my second I was on the pill. I'm now on the IUD. For my friend who has 3 at 21 years old, she is controlled by the kids father who is 25. And my friend with 4 had one of the fathera die, the other walked out and the father of her two boys now refuses to help with anything but rent and won't allow her to work. My friends with one child either have absentee fathers or are just barely scraping by.

Its not a stretch to say these people make minimum wage. My husband worked for one company 5 years at $8.25/hr and my job gave me raise from $8.25/hr to $9.10/hr in 4 years. Trust me if SS isn't available when my friends and I are older, either our kids will have to support us, or we will be grandma on the streets.

 

[Crossroads]

Yes... I do.... If you save enough.... and have enough time. Almost anyone can do it.... really... I know that past performance of the stock market is not a guarantee of things to come in the future. But.... if you take any 30 year period of the stock market(about the span of a persons working life), I do not believe there is any other investment that is consistantly better.

If someone makes the US average which is 47k/year, and you start saving 15% of that every year.... assuming an average of 8% growth a year (obviously some years are much worse... others much better, but over 30 years the market usually does about that), why is that impossible?....

Just because I am a numbers guy... I went to the following site...

Compound Interest Calculator

So starting with an initial investment of $7050 (which is 15% of 47k) adding $7050 every year for 30 years.... with an average return of 8% comes out to $933,480.10 So why is becomming a millionaire such a stretch of the imagination? Now I did not say that saving 15% of your salary was easy.... or even that EVERYONE makes at least 47k. But on average... more often than not... if this was a priority in you life to do this..... looks like most people could. Am I really that far off the mark here?

Now, this is hypothetical, because obviously not everyone, or really only a minority have the ability, luck, and or the will to do what it takes to become rich, BUT...

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is only a certain amount of wealth in the country, it is not unlimited, (not counting the fed printing more money). But especially if we went with a more libertarian philosophy for currency, and had all of our currency backed by a commodity, gold for instance, certainly not everyone could be a millionaire, 320 million people? I don't see how it could happen. Even if you use 250k as "rich", still probably impossible.

 

[armor99]

Now, this is hypothetical, because obviously not everyone, or really only a minority have the ability, luck, and or the will to do what it takes to become rich, BUT...

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is only a certain amount of wealth in the country, it is not unlimited, (not counting the fed printing more money). But especially if we went with a more libertarian philosophy for currency, and had all of our currency backed by a commodity, gold for instance, certainly not everyone could be a millionaire, 320 million people? I don't see how it could happen. Even if you use 250k as "rich", still probably impossible.

No... there is NOT a finite amount of money. The GDP grows and shrinks all the time.

I just showed you the way to become wealthy. I used real numbers, real facts, and real ways to achieve it. And STILL, you go on to tell me how impossible it is. How only a very small percentage can actually do what I proposed. Really? Does the math I showed you suddenly not work? The real secret to becomming wealthy is that it is not a secret. And it does not happen quickly. It takes decades of hard work, effort, and a willingness to see it through.

I can tell you from my own personal experience that it DOES work. I have been following this plan since I was 29.... My net worth was a few thousand back then... it is considerably higher now, and I am still under 40. Do what you want with your money. But you will also live with the conequences of those decisions for a lifetime...