Social Security: if you had a choice

[Goobieman]

But I personally have a problem seeing people who have worked but can no longer because of age or sickness, living on the streets and starving to death because they made bad investment decisions, got taken by con men, got sick for some reason, or just were too poor to save enough.

It bothers me to think of people in that group starving to death and living on the streets. What can I say? I'm a liberal. If Mencia has no problem with, good for him.

It bothers you.

How does it bothering you mean that I should not have a choice as to if I want my money to go to these people?

My money, my choice.

 

[Iriemon]

1) It would remove hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the reach of politicians.

And expand the deficit and debt expotentially. But borrowing isn't an issue with you pass the buckers, is it?

Politicians don't like it when their money is taken away. Oh, wait, it's not their money.

Doesn't seem to borrow the Republicans. "Charge it!"

2) It would tell the American people that they could no longer steal from their neighbors to take care of their mother.

3) It would tell the American people that they could no longer expect to steal from their neighbors to finance their own comfy retirement.

4) People would stop thinking of the government as their mother and start thinking about relying on themselves. Politicians hate that worse than losing the money.

Other than that, privatization would increase the indivdual wealth of private Americans, often leading to estates being handed down worth millions, and if that happened enough, there'd be a stronger surge to cancel the death taxes, which the politicians again would hate.

Actually, nothing bad would happen if people were allowed to keep their own money, and lots of good things would happen. The politicians hate that, too.

I think most of the hundred million or so people who have already paid into the SS system and depend upon it might think it is "bad" when their checks stop coming in. Just a guess.

 

[Iriemon]

It bothers you.

How does it bothering you mean that I should not have a choice as to if I want my money to go to these people?

My money, my choice.

Not the way it works. It's one of those rotten things about a democracy. Sorry.

But sure it borthers me. Seeing people starve to death doesn't bother you? Not one of those "compassionate" conservatives, eh?

 

[Goobieman]

Not the way it works. It's one of those rotten things about a democracy. Sorry.

I see.
So, when that democracy outlaws abortion and/or doesnt allow gay marriage -- Sorry, that's just the way it works. Right?

I thought not.

So, why is it again I should not have a choice?

But sure it borthers me.

How does the fact it bothers -YOU- create a sound argument as to why -I- should not have a choice?

 

[Stinger]

We already recognize it. The question is, how do you pay for it? If current workers put the SS money into a 401k, how does that pay for the boomers' SS benefits?

The money needed for the transition to private accounts is already an implied debt, and obligation just not on the books so to speak. All privitation does does is make it current. One way or the other it has to be paid.

But I agree in principal -- SS should be a type of welfare that provides a minimal level of support for those too unlucky, stupid or poor to have been able to have saved otherwise. It should not be paid to millionaires that are living a lavish lifestyle. It is stupid to pay the Govt dole to Warren Buffet, which is exactly what we do.

Then junk the system, roll it into state wel-fare programs, get rid of the whole SSA, let us out of it to take care of ourselves. Quit pretending it's a retirement program.

 

[Iriemon]

I see.
So, when that democracy outlaws abortion and/or doesnt allow gay marriage -- Sorry, that's just the way it works. Right?

I thought not.

So, why is it again I should not have a choice?

How does the fact it bothers -YOU- create a sound argument as to why -I- should not have a choice?

You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. If you don't like social insurance that's your opinion, that's find. I explained why I support social insurance like SS, even though it is not perfect.

My point about democracy is your implicit assertion that you should be able to decide whether you should have to pay taxes or not to fund government programs because it is your money. That is not the way it is in a democracy, the majority decides what the Govt spends and the taxation level.

 

[Iriemon]

The money needed for the transition to private accounts is already an implied debt, and obligation just not on the books so to speak. All privitation does does is make it current. One way or the other it has to be paid.

It doesn't matter how you put it on the books. Social security is funded by SS taxes, which brought in about $800 billion in revenue last year. If you take those revenues out of the system by creating private accounts, then (unless we just trash SS) then the $800 billion must be raised through other new taxes.

The net effect is that taxes will be raised to make up the difference. Your private account will be a forced system of saving what you currently put in a 401k but with the Govt telling you how you must invest it and how much you have to save. I'd prefer to make my own choices on how to invest my money, thanks.

Then junk the system, roll it into state wel-fare programs, get rid of the whole SSA, let us out of it to take care of ourselves. Quit pretending it's a retirement program.

I agree, though I support federal programs as opposed to state. SS is not an investment, let's not pretend that it is. It is social life, disability, and pension insurance.

 

[Kandahar]

And expand the deficit and debt expotentially. But borrowing isn't an issue with you pass the buckers, is it?



Doesn't seem to borrow the Republicans. "Charge it!"

This is a misunderstanding of what exactly privatization would do. It wouldn't create trillions of dollars in new debt. That debt already exists and has already been promised to future retirees. This would just be a recognition of that debt. Will it be easy to pay it off? No. Is it better to keep SS intact (and therefore accumulating even more debt that has been promised to future SS recipients) to delay the day of reckoning? Certainly not.

I think most of the hundred million or so people who have already paid into the SS system and depend upon it might think it is "bad" when their checks stop coming in. Just a guess.

Who said they'd stop receiving checks? The government has forcibly extracted an interest-free loan from them; the government must pay it back. That doesn't mean we should accumulate even MORE debt to do so.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

And expand the deficit and debt expotentially. But borrowing isn't an issue with you pass the buckers, is it?

I don't recall saying that spending should continue at it's current level. You're the one hoping to benefit from that. You're the one passing the buck onto my children.

When one cuts the payroll taxes to finance socialist security, one should cut the entitlement it's funding, and all the other programs theft of that money is also funding.

Duh.

But the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It doesn't matter how you put it on the books. Social security is funded by SS taxes, which brought in about $800 billion in revenue last year. If you take those revenues out of the system by creating private accounts, then (unless we just trash SS) then the $800 billion must be raised through other new taxes.

The moral option is to cut $800 billion in spending. The liberals don't savvy morality.

The net effect is that taxes will be raised to make up the difference. Your private account will be a forced system of saving what you currently put in a 401k but with the Govt telling you how you must invest it and how much you have to save. I'd prefer to make my own choices on how to invest my money, thanks.

Oh, the way things are going presently, those 401(k)'s will be tapped by the government to fund socialist security expenditures by 2030. There won't be any money anywhere else. All that needs to be done is for some greedy politicians to incite the mob and get a bill passed to confiscate those funds...er to place a fee on the disbursement of those funds and to claim that all 401(k)/IRA funds are not part of any estate and revert back to the government upon the demise of their custodian. (Can't say owner, the government thinks all money belongs to it).

 

[Goobieman]

You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. If you don't like social insurance that's your opinion, that's find. I explained why I support social insurance like SS, even though it is not perfect.

So what you're saying is that you don't have a sound argument as to why I should not have a choice to pay or not to pay into SocSec. Good enough.

My point about democracy is your implicit assertion that you should be able to decide whether you should have to pay taxes or not to fund government programs because it is your money. That is not the way it is in a democracy, the majority decides what the Govt spends and the taxation level.

Just like the majority can decide things like gay marriage and abortion.
Right?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

So what you're saying is that you don't have a sound argument as to why I should not have a choice to pay or not to pay into SocSec. Good enough.

No, he gave plenty of reasons why you cant have the choice to pay into the Social Security system or not. The reasons are basically:

1. The money you pay in pays for current retieries. You stop paying in, and the net result is about half of our seniors are automatically reduced to living in abject poverty.

2. There are currently surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare Systems. Those surpluses are used to fund deficits in general revenue. You get rid of payroll taxes today, and the 500 billion dollar yearly deficits jump to nearly a trillion dollars. Financing that kind of debt on the open markets will be very difficult. More than likely it would require the government to raise the rates on T-Bills to lure investment away from the markets. Thats bad for the stock markets, but even worse, its completely unsustainable as debt service as a percentage of revenue would grow exponetially. Within a few years, debt service would be so high that the federal government would be forced to begin defaulting on debt, or raise taxes to extremely high levels. If the government were to start defaulting on its debts, nothing less than worldwide economic collapse would result from it. If the government were to raise taxes proportionatly enough to float all the debt service, it would be like dropping anchor on the U.S. economy.

3. You already have the option to invest pre-tax into 401ks and traditional IRAs. Social Security for most individuals should not be their soul source of retierment income. However, in the event of another economic depression, it will be all that prevents most people from living in total squaler upon retiring as such an event would result in their retirement savings virtually evaporating. Being that every couple of generations we do have an economic slowdown that could be characterized as an economic depression, such a scenario is certainly possible.

Even if privatizing Social Security was an excellent idea for future retieries, its economically impossible to do so in our current climate.

Just like the majority can decide things like gay marriage and abortion.
Right?

You are comparing apples to oranges. In our nation, we have certain inalienable rights. We also have policies that we collectively decide on. The source of your inalienable rights is that you basically have the right to live your life the way you choose to live your life so long as your actions do not impede another individuals ability to do the same. For example, to make a constitutional argument against same sex marriage, an individual would have to make the literal argument that by allowing same sex couples the right to marry under the law, that it would impede the rights of others.

In the case of public policy, we decide things like we are going to have safety net in our society, or we are going to have a standing army, or we going to go to war. You can no more opt out of funding public policies like social safety nets, than you can opt out of paying taxes during a time of war. If you don't like public policy, then you merely have to convince enough of your fellow voters to elect representatives who would change that policy.

Of course, since we have as a nation for the last 100 years or so decided that we are going to have a certain level of a safety net for the less fortunate and retired in our society, I doubt you will ever accomplish that. I would also argue that if you don't like the fact that we as America have decided that as a civilized and just society, we must have some sort of safety net for the less fortunate among us and that we must have some sort of way to provide for those who retired, then you don't like America because thats who we are.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You are entitled to whatever opinion you want. If you don't like social insurance that's your opinion, that's find. I explained why I support social insurance like SS, even though it is not perfect.

My point about democracy is your implicit assertion that you should be able to decide whether you should have to pay taxes or not to fund government programs because it is your money. That is not the way it is in a democracy, the majority decides what the Govt spends and the taxation level.

Well, what you're decribing is a fascist "democracy", where individuals are allowed to say the money is theirs, but the government gets to say how it's spent.

It's my body, my choice, right? My body earns the money, so its supposed to be my choice on how it's spent. If that's not the case, it's slavery.

In a free society, if you feel bad about all those starving maggots, you can go buy them as much steak as you feel you can afford...USING YOUR OWN MONEY. You can ask me to chip in for the A1, but in free societies you can't pull out an uzi and force me to buy it, like you're able to do today.

Real men dislike socialism for that reason. They're not slaves.

 

[Goobieman]

No, he gave plenty of reasons why you cant have the choice to pay into the Social Security system or not.

He gave me reasons. These reasons do not equate to a sound argument, however.

1. The money you pay in pays for current retieries. You stop paying in, and the net result is about half of our seniors are automatically reduced to living in abject poverty.

For this to support a sound argument, you have to show hoe these people are my responsibility, and how that responsibiity trumps my right to chose what I do with my money.

That is, you have to show how these people have more of a right to my money than I do.

2. There are currently surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare Systems. Those surpluses are used to fund deficits in general revenue. You get rid of payroll taxes today, and the 500 billion dollar yearly deficits jump to nearly a trillion dollars.

How does the fact that the government has dug itself a hole that it cannot easily recover from trump my right to chose to do what I want to do with my money?

You also fail to consider that one way to resolve the problem you describe is to cut benfits to the level supportable by income from payroll taxes.

3. You already have the option to invest pre-tax into 401ks and traditional IRAs. Social Security for most individuals should not be their soul source of retierment income.

How does this mean I should NOT have the choice to put my FICA deduction into that same 401k, rather than sending it to SocSec.

My money, my choice.

In our nation, we have certain inalienable rights.

One of those is the right to pursue happiness. Part of that right is the right to earn money and spend it how you want to.

Where did the goivernment get the power to decide how I should spend my mony on my retirement, or the retirement of others? Be specific with your citation of said power.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

1. The money you pay in pays for current retieries. You stop paying in, and the net result is about half of our seniors are automatically reduced to living in abject poverty.

Solution:

End Payroll withholding for current socialist security payouts, require the employers to pay the employee the matching payments they send straight to Aunt Samantha (feminist revisionism strikes again) and inform workers past a certain age that their benefits have stopped accruing.

Then insitute a new tax with a defined demise period that pays for current socialist security expenditures, projected future expenditures for people already in the system (but who's "benefits" have now stopped accruing), and dedicate that money in the budget to that purpose only, with criminal penalties on lawmakers that seek to violate this boundary.

Problem of old farts dependent on poorly thought out socialist promises solved.

Oh, and don't forget that means testing becomes real, and retirees with million dollar porforlios won't be getting their vacations to Europe financed by the children of strangers any more. This will also greatly reduce the burden of future expenditures to be carried by said children.

2. There are currently surpluses in the Social Security and Medicare Systems. Those surpluses are used to fund deficits in general revenue. You get rid of payroll taxes today, and the 500 billion dollar yearly deficits jump to nearly a trillion dollars.

Then reduce federal spending to an acceptable balance with what the public is willing to pay in real taxes to cover it. But end the deficit spending. So far, whenever the government finds a buck, it spend two.

Just right a Constitutional Amendment requiring that sales taxes be raised to meet next two year's expected spending, that that tax bill has to be passed before Halloween in the even numbered year preceeding it's implementation, and that the appropriations bill cannot be passed until the tax bill is passed, and the appropriations bill must be balanced with the projected tax bill.

Failure to sign the tax bill into law invalidates the apropriations bill.

Financing that kind of debt on the open markets will be very difficult. More than likely it would require the government to raise the rates on T-Bills to lure investment away from the markets. Thats bad for the stock markets, but even worse, its completely unsustainable as debt service as a percentage of revenue would grow exponetially. Within a few years, debt service would be so high that the federal government would be forced to begin defaulting on debt, or raise taxes to extremely high levels. If the government were to start defaulting on its debts, nothing less than worldwide economic collapse would result from it. If the government were to raise taxes proportionatly enough to float all the debt service, it would be like dropping anchor on the U.S. economy.

Amazing! A Democrat never considers that possibility that government could be forced to reduce spending.

3. You already have the option to invest pre-tax into 401ks and traditional IRAs. Social Security for most individuals should not be their soul source of retierment income. However, in the event of another economic depression, it will be all that prevents most people from living in total squaler upon retiring as such an event would result in their retirement savings virtually evaporating.

The points already been made that there's no reason to think that another depression would leave the government with the resources to cope with millions of indigent elderly. After all, the presumption behind the current ponzi scheme is that the workers have incomes derived from jobs, and jobs are what are in short supply in a depression. Ergo, arguing that socialist security is necessary in the unlikely event of another Depression is fallacious.

Being that every couple of generations we do have an economic slowdown that could be characterized as an economic depression, such a scenario is certainly possible.

No, we only had one economic slowdown that could be characterized as a "depression" (actually, all recessions are "depressions", but FDR was having depressions in the Great Depression, so he coined the term "recession" to make it seem somehow different. The Great Depression itself was caused by the government interference in the banking system. And again, even if another Depression was likely, socialist security won't help matters. Taking capital out of the economy via taxes will only exacerbate the problem.

Even if privatizing Social Security was an excellent idea for future retieries, its economically impossible to do so in our current climate.

Ah, the old "it's impossible to fix, so let's not bother argument".

We're all going to die someday, why not commit suicide this afternoon?

You are comparing apples to oranges. In our nation, we have certain inalienable rights.

Not one of which includes the right to take money from someone else to support the indigent.

We also have policies that we collectively decide on. The source of your inalienable rights is that you basically have the right to live your life the way you choose to live your life so long as your actions do not impede another individuals ability to do the same. For example, to make a constitutional argument against same sex marriage, an individual would have to make the literal argument that by allowing same sex couples the right to marry under the law, that it would impede the rights of others.

In the case of public policy, we decide things like we are going to have safety net in our society, or we are going to have a standing army, or we going to go to war. You can no more opt out of funding public policies like social safety nets, than you can opt out of paying taxes during a time of war. If you don't like public policy, then you merely have to convince enough of your fellow voters to elect representatives who would change that policy.

A standing army has been debated over and over again. A bit off topic, but originally we had a cadre of professional officers, a small nucleus of trained lifetime enlisted men, and we relied on the training of militias to keep the skills of the general public up so that when a larger armed force was necessary we could call it up.

Modern war technology changed all that. As for the army, I'm all for our totally volunteer service, and financing them via sales of war bonds to private citizens.

As for socialist security as a "safety net", people wishing to participate should have the freedom to choose to do so. People wishing to decline to participate should have the freedom to do so. Forcing people to participate in a ponzi scheme is a clear violation of all Constitutional freedoms that apply.

Of course, since we have as a nation for the last 100 years or so decided that we are going to have a certain level of a safety net for the less fortunate and retired in our society, I doubt you will ever accomplish that. I would also argue that if you don't like the fact that we as America have decided that as a civilized and just society, we must have some sort of safety net for the less fortunate among us and that we must have some sort of way to provide for those who retired, then you don't like America because thats who we are.

So much for "freedom to choose". It only applies when liberals want babies murdered. When people want to live their own lives, liberals don't like it.

 

[Iriemon]

This is a misunderstanding of what exactly privatization would do. It wouldn't create trillions of dollars in new debt. That debt already exists and has already been promised to future retirees. This would just be a recognition of that debt. Will it be easy to pay it off? No. Is it better to keep SS intact (and therefore accumulating even more debt that has been promised to future SS recipients) to delay the day of reckoning? Certainly not.


Who said they'd stop receiving checks? The government has forcibly extracted an interest-free loan from them; the government must pay it back. That doesn't mean we should accumulate even MORE debt to do so.

We already recognize the debt. If you privatize SS, you are removing $800 billion in revenues from the Govt.

How are you going to replace those revenues to pay SS benefits?

 

[Iriemon]

I don't recall saying that spending should continue at it's current level. You're the one hoping to benefit from that. You're the one passing the buck onto my children.

When one cuts the payroll taxes to finance socialist security, one should cut the entitlement it's funding, and all the other programs theft of that money is also funding.

Duh.

But the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

OK, you think we should elminate the SS program and to the hell with everyone who paid into it to date.

Since it doesn't benefit you, to hell with everyone else. That is consistent with your philosophy.

 

[Iriemon]

So what you're saying is that you don't have a sound argument as to why I should not have a choice to pay or not to pay into SocSec. Good enough.

I presented a good argument. You disagree with it, that's your opinion. Fair enough.

Just like the majority can decide things like gay marriage and abortion.
Right?

That is what happens, isn't it?

 

[Goobieman]

That is what happens, isn't it?

When abortion is outlawed, all we hear about is the right to choose.

Its clear that the right to choose covers only choices that liberals approve of; liberals would never approve of a choice that means less power for them.

And thats what giving people the choice to send their money to SocSec leads to - less power for liberals.

 

[Iriemon]

Solution:

End Payroll withholding for current socialist security payouts, require the employers to pay the employee the matching payments they send straight to Aunt Samantha (feminist revisionism strikes again) and inform workers past a certain age that their benefits have stopped accruing.

You have halved the SS receipts, which is not even close to being sufficient to pay current SS benefits, much less future obligations.

Then insitute a new tax with a defined demise period that pays for current socialist security expenditures, projected future expenditures for people already in the system (but who's "benefits" have now stopped accruing), and dedicate that money in the budget to that purpose only, with criminal penalties on lawmakers that seek to violate this boundary.

You are arguing for a new tax, roughly double the size of the current SS tax, where the government controls how I can invest my money? No thanks.

Oh, and don't forget that means testing becomes real, and retirees with million dollar porforlios won't be getting their vacations to Europe financed by the children of strangers any more. This will also greatly reduce the burden of future expenditures to be carried by said children.

I agree on means testing.

Then reduce federal spending to an acceptable balance with what the public is willing to pay in real taxes to cover it. But end the deficit spending. So far, whenever the government finds a buck, it spend two.

Tell your conservative friends in Congress to get on the ball. They've done nothing for six years to cut spending.

Just right a Constitutional Amendment requiring that sales taxes be raised to meet next two year's expected spending, that that tax bill has to be passed before Halloween in the even numbered year preceeding it's implementation, and that the appropriations bill cannot be passed until the tax bill is passed, and the appropriations bill must be balanced with the projected tax bill.

What sales taxes? I support a balanced budget law.

Amazing! A Democrat never considers that possibility that government could be forced to reduce spending.

I'm all for cutting spending. Probably not the same way you are, though.

As for socialist security as a "safety net", people wishing to participate should have the freedom to choose to do so. People wishing to decline to participate should have the freedom to do so. Forcing people to participate in a ponzi scheme is a clear violation of all Constitutional freedoms that apply.

I don't recall SS being held unconstitutional, or even a serious debate about it. Apparently most disagree with your claim.

So much for "freedom to choose". It only applies when liberals want babies murdered. When people want to live their own lives, liberals don't like it.

You have freedom to choose. You can move to Mexico or some other country where you don't have to deal with SS taxes.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, what you're decribing is a fascist "democracy", where individuals are allowed to say the money is theirs, but the government gets to say how it's spent.

It's my body, my choice, right? My body earns the money, so its supposed to be my choice on how it's spent. If that's not the case, it's slavery.

No. Not right.

In a free society, if you feel bad about all those starving maggots, you can go buy them as much steak as you feel you can afford...USING YOUR OWN MONEY. You can ask me to chip in for the A1, but in free societies you can't pull out an uzi and force me to buy it, like you're able to do today.

Real men dislike socialism for that reason. They're not slaves.

Real men aren't bothered by seeing people starve?

 

[Iriemon]

When abortion is outlawed, all we hear about is the right to choose.

Its clear that the right to choose covers only choices that liberals approve of; liberals would never approve of a choice that means less power for them.

And thats what giving people the choice to send their money to SocSec leads to - less power for liberals.

Don't conservatives do the same? They want to be able to choose not to pay taxes, but tell a woman she can't choose whether to have her rapist's baby.

 

[Goobieman]

You have halved the SS receipts, which is not even close to being sufficient to pay current SS benefits, much less future obligations.

So cut them.
Cut spending in benifits to match revenues.

After all, isnt that what you argue needs to be done:

Tell your conservative friends in Congress to get on the ball. They've done nothing for six years to cut spending.

I don't recall SS being held unconstitutional, or even a serious debate about it. Apparently most disagree with your claim.

So, what you're saying is that even though there isnt a single word in the Constitution that gives the fed Gvmtn the power to create and maintain SocSec, you're OK with it.

Translation:
Unconstitutional is OK by you so long as you like what's being done.

You have freedom to choose. You can move to Mexico or some other country where you don't have to deal with SS taxes.

Same goes for you when dealing with the Administration's foreign policy.
I see you're still here.

 

[Iriemon]

So cut them.
Cut spending in benifits to match revenues.

After all, isnt that what you argue needs to be done:

Great. Why haven't the Republicans done this?

So, what you're saying is that even though there isnt a single word in the Constitution that gives the fed Gvmtn the power to create and maintain SocSec, you're OK with it.
Translation:
Unconstitutional is OK by you so long as you like what's being done.

No, I'm saying that your blathering about it being unconstitution is irrelevant. Few in Govt seems to think it is unconstitutional. If in your opinion it's unconsitutional, so what?

Same goes for you when dealing with the Administration's foreign policy. I see you're still here.

I'm not complaining about choice; but if they insitute a draft to support this immoral war I'll consider it.

 

[Jerry]

Don't conservatives do the same? They want to be able to choose not to pay taxes, but tell a woman she can't choose whether to have her rapist's baby.

Way to straw man.
Money can not be murdered or killed. It is not alive in any way, to any degree, at all. Money has no legal standing or afforded protections as a "person" on any state or federal level. Money has no claim to a right to life, as it can not be identified as either a human being nor a sentient information system. A ZEF, however, can be.

In any event, rape is a common pro life exception to banning abortion. It is sertanly one of mine. So there again your comparison does not fly.