• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Secret Language Of The Social Security Debate

I love the liberals that say social security is popular but when you want to make it voulentary they say it will collapse. If its so popular wont people want to stay in it?
 
I love the liberals that say social security is popular but when you want to make it voulentary they say it will collapse. If its so popular wont people want to stay in it?

That's because making it optional would result in many opting out; then when they did not save, or banks cook up credit default swaps and decimate their investments, we have no option as a society: we still take care of them.

Social Security is exactly as the name suggests: a level of economic security, and in fact, very minimal. Just keep you above the poverty level. If you want better, it's still your option.
 
I try to no over-think it and get mired in the minutia. I merely think it a vital program, and support it being fully-funded, in service of the vital need it serves.

You should think about it, because Social Security isn't funded. It is financed. To fully fund Social Security, we would need 23 trillion dollars. Do you have that laying around?
 
I love the liberals that say social security is popular but when you want to make it voulentary they say it will collapse. If its so popular wont people want to stay in it?

Social Security is very popular. Paying for it is much less so.
 
That's because making it optional would result in many opting out; then when they did not save, or banks cook up credit default swaps and decimate their investments, we have no option as a society: we still take care of them.

Many? It might take a year or even two, but as reports show the deterioration everyone would leave. Everyone leaves a burning house.

Social Security is exactly as the name suggests: a level of economic security, and in fact, very minimal. Just keep you above the poverty level. If you want better, it's still your option.

Social Security is old-age insurance. It has nothing to do with poverty or the poverty level. Not one penny of benefits is based on need. Millions of Americans aren't even eligible whether they are in need or not.

In terms of security, 80% of the country thinks that the system is heading for crisis. Today - in a GOOD economy - anyone 64 or younger expects to outlive full benefits.
 
Social Security is very popular. Paying for it is much less so.

Why does sustaining the ability to provide basic support for the elderly need to be "paid for" IYV? There is little risk of inflation associated with SS payments...
 
I love the liberals that say social security is popular but when you want to make it voulentary they say it will collapse. If its so popular wont people want to stay in it?

Social Security

SS consistently gets between 70%-85% approval rates.

Are you seriously going to argue that is not "popular"?
 
Social Security

SS consistently gets between 70%-85% approval rates.

Are you seriously going to argue that is not "popular"?

If you get a poll from NASI, yes the approval rates are 85%+. I watch a wider range of polls. Generally the concept is popular the cost is highly unpopular particularly in the younger workers.

If you ask something like "Should Social Security Benefits Be Cut To Lower The Deficit"? That question will get 60%-70% negative rates despite the fact that SS benefits aren't even counted in the deficit. People like the concept of Social Security.

If you ask a quetion like "Would you raise your own taxes to ensure the solvency of Social Security" - as Yahoo did - you get about 9 to 1 against with 40,000 respondents.

These questions touch on very different things. In the first question, people don't want SS benefits cut to preserve the fat in the rest of the Federal Budget. It isn't just about SS it is about Federal spending. In question two, it is a question about whether you would pay more for the system yourself.
 
The article you linked to is an opinion piece and not the actual SSA report.


I am referring to the link that I posted earlier, Long Range Solvency Provisions. Earlier I also posted that on page 66 of the 2013 Trustees Report you will find that sovlency solutions do not work from year to year.
[/QUOTE]

Great... what you posted is mirrors the same points made by my link to the 2009 analysis. Removing the cap and providing benefit credits for those making more than maximum increases solvency from 2033 to 2061 but not as much as removing the cap and not providing increased benefits for higher wage earners.

So again.. removing the cap helps make social security solvent.

Next?
 

Great... what you posted is mirrors the same points made by my link to the 2009 analysis. Removing the cap and providing benefit credits for those making more than maximum increases solvency from 2033 to 2061 but not as much as removing the cap and not providing increased benefits for higher wage earners.

So again.. removing the cap helps make social security solvent.

Next?[/QUOTE]

When you remove the cap, you simply make SS a capped entitlement based on income which was never its intent...
 
Why does sustaining the ability to provide basic support for the elderly need to be "paid for" IYV? There is little risk of inflation associated with SS payments...

While it sounds wonderful, Social Security isn't a safety-net. SS is insurance which supplements someone's personal savings. It is not intended to be 'basic support'. It is suppose to help people offset the RISK of outliving their personal savings. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need even if it had a charter to provide 'basic support'.

Even if Social Security were a safety-net, the benefits have to be paid for. Today's arrangement is unstable. Originally SS was suppose to be self-funded. Now it is financed.


There is little risk of inflation associated with SS payments...

You would have to explain this one. Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation so inflation is a death bell for the system.
 
Many? It might take a year or even two, but as reports show the deterioration everyone would leave. Everyone leaves a burning house.



Social Security is old-age insurance. It has nothing to do with poverty or the poverty level. Not one penny of benefits is based on need. Millions of Americans aren't even eligible whether they are in need or not.

In terms of security, 80% of the country thinks that the system is heading for crisis. Today - in a GOOD economy - anyone 64 or younger expects to outlive full benefits.

Bull.. it has everything to do with poverty when its your only source of income or your major source of income.

..Social Security is the major source of income for older Americans. About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three of those beneficiaries (65 percent), Social Security was more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income. Social Security is a large share of income because many Americans age 65 and older lack significant income from other sources. Pensions (from private or government employment) were received by about half of married couples (from either the husband's or the wife's career). Among the unmarried, 38 percent of men and 34 percent of women had pensions.

Social Security is the sole source of income for about one in five (21 percent) of people aged 65 and older. Certain subgroups are particularly reliant on Social Security. Of those age 65 and older, Social Security is the sole source of income for 36 percent of Hispanics and African Americans, 25 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders, 19 percent of whites, and 20 percent of unmarried women.

Social Security plays an important role in keeping older Americans out of poverty. The poverty threshold was $10,788 for an aged individual and $13,610 for an aged couple in 2011. About one in 10 Americans age 65 and older is poor, by this measure. If they had to rely only on their income other than Social Security, nearly half would be poor. Overall, Social Security keeps 20 million Americans out of poverty, including nearly 14 million seniors and 1 million children.
.



Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.
◦Nearly nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
◦Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
◦Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
◦ Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 23% of married couples and about 46% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income
 
While it sounds wonderful, Social Security isn't a safety-net. SS is insurance which supplements someone's personal savings. It is not intended to be 'basic support'. It is suppose to help people offset the RISK of outliving their personal savings. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need even if it had a charter to provide 'basic support'.

Even if Social Security were a safety-net, the benefits have to be paid for. Today's arrangement is unstable. Originally SS was suppose to be self-funded. Now it is financed.

You would have to explain this one. Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation so inflation is a death bell for the system.

When you forcibly take 12.4% of a person's income over their working years, yes, one would expect some return for that. Providing SS payments to meet basic needs of the elderly is not inflationary and there is no need to "pay for it" anymore than there is a need to "pay for" a tax cut unless that cut would lead to abnormal inflation...
 
If you get a poll from NASI, yes the approval rates are 85%+. I watch a wider range of polls. Generally the concept is popular the cost is highly unpopular particularly in the younger workers.

If you ask something like "Should Social Security Benefits Be Cut To Lower The Deficit"? That question will get 60%-70% negative rates despite the fact that SS benefits aren't even counted in the deficit. People like the concept of Social Security.

If you ask a quetion like "Would you raise your own taxes to ensure the solvency of Social Security" - as Yahoo did - you get about 9 to 1 against with 40,000 respondents.

These questions touch on very different things. In the first question, people don't want SS benefits cut to preserve the fat in the rest of the Federal Budget. It isn't just about SS it is about Federal spending. In question two, it is a question about whether you would pay more for the system yourself.

I think it's well known that the form a question takes can have a big effect on the result. For example, if you replace the words "your taxes" with just "taxes", the support for raising taxes is huge.
 
Great... what you posted is mirrors the same points made by my link to the 2009 analysis. Removing the cap and providing benefit credits for those making more than maximum increases solvency from 2033 to 2061 but not as much as removing the cap and not providing increased benefits for higher wage earners.

So again.. removing the cap helps make social security solvent.

Next?

When you remove the cap, you simply make SS a capped entitlement based on income which was never its intent...[/QUOTE]

Its intent was to be a safety net...and it has always been based on income and it has always been capped as far as how much you can take out.

I have put in FAR FAR more into social security than I will likely get out (and I am going to still be paying for decades).... Which is fine by me... because in the event that I die, it will help protect my children and if I get disabled it could end up helping me more than I paid in.

The cap needs to be changed... if its not.. then its going to fall to my generation and my kids to foot the bill for the excesses of the previous generation.
 
Great... what you posted is mirrors the same points made by my link to the 2009 analysis. ...


I have posted material from 2013 which completely rejects what was written in 2009. Separately I have posted why 2009 analysis is no longer relevant. It is based on data that is trillions of dollars out-of-date.

Part of the problem is that words have meanings within the debate. Solvency has a specific meaning. In 2009, solvency meant net cashflows between 2009-2083. In 2013, it is 2013-2087. As is explained on page 66 of the 2013 Trustees Report. Solvency becomes more difficult year over year. You have one fewer years to discount. Separately, you are including outyears where the financial imbalances of the system are worse.


Removing the cap and providing benefit credits for those making more than maximum increases solvency from 2033 to 2061 but not as much as removing the cap and not providing increased benefits for higher wage earners.

So again.. removing the cap helps make social security solvent.

Next?

When you remove the cap, you simply make SS a capped entitlement based on income which was never its intent...[/QUOTE]


When you say 'never its intent', you are spanning a lot of years and a lot of change. When you remove the cap, you make the system more dependent upon taxes (the portion of contriubtion on which there is no economic return). FDR rejected that model. So you would have to explain the last sentence, and detail what you mean by 'intent'.
 
While it sounds wonderful, Social Security isn't a safety-net. SS is insurance which supplements someone's personal savings. It is not intended to be 'basic support'. It is suppose to help people offset the RISK of outliving their personal savings. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need even if it had a charter to provide 'basic support'.

Even if Social Security were a safety-net, the benefits have to be paid for. Today's arrangement is unstable. Originally SS was suppose to be self-funded. Now it is financed.




You would have to explain this one. Social Security benefits are automatically adjusted for inflation so inflation is a death bell for the system.

I disagree. SS is meant to be one "leg" of a "three legged stool" designed to support people in their retirement. The other two legs were supposed to be personal savings and pensions.

IOW, it wasn't meant for people to use once their personal savings were exhausted. It was meant to be used alongside ones' personal savings (as well as ones' pension)

However, you do have a good point about "basic support"
 
When you remove the cap, you simply make SS a capped entitlement based on income which was never its intent...

Its intent was to be a safety net...and it has always been based on income and it has always been capped as far as how much you can take out.

I have put in FAR FAR more into social security than I will likely get out (and I am going to still be paying for decades).... Which is fine by me... because in the event that I die, it will help protect my children and if I get disabled it could end up helping me more than I paid in.

The cap needs to be changed... if its not.. then its going to fall to my generation and my kids to foot the bill for the excesses of the previous generation.[/QUOTE]

SS benefits have only been capped as the contributions have been capped. If the cap on income is removed, the benefit should be adjusted accordingly to recognize those contributions. Otherwise, it becomes nothing more than any other entitlement which was never the intent...
 
When you forcibly take 12.4% of a person's income over their working years, yes, one would expect some return for that. Providing SS payments to meet basic needs of the elderly is not inflationary and there is no need to "pay for it" anymore than there is a need to "pay for" a tax cut unless that cut would lead to abnormal inflation...

SS doesn't take 12.4% of a persons' income. It takes half of that. The other half comes from the employer
 
I have posted material from 2013 which completely rejects what was written in 2009. Separately I have posted why 2009 analysis is no longer relevant. It is based on data that is trillions of dollars out-of-date.

Part of the problem is that words have meanings within the debate. Solvency has a specific meaning. In 2009, solvency meant net cashflows between 2009-2083. In 2013, it is 2013-2087. As is explained on page 66 of the 2013 Trustees Report. Solvency becomes more difficult year over year. You have one fewer years to discount. Separately, you are including outyears where the financial imbalances of the system are worse.




When you remove the cap, you simply make SS a capped entitlement based on income which was never its intent...


When you say 'never its intent', you are spanning a lot of years and a lot of change. When you remove the cap, you make the system more dependent upon taxes (the portion of contriubtion on which there is no economic return). FDR rejected that model. So you would have to explain the last sentence, and detail what you mean by 'intent'.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what's wrong, but what you're quoting are not my posts...
 
I think it's well known that the form a question takes can have a big effect on the result. For example, if you replace the words "your taxes" with just "taxes", the support for raising taxes is huge.

If you ask if you could only do one of the two raise taxes or cut benefits, raise taxes wins out 2 to 1. As far as I can tell the only alternative that gets close to 50% approval is raising the cap. It is throwing someone else money at the problem.
 
I'm not sure what's wrong, but what you're quoting are not my posts...[/QUOTE]

I realized after I hit submit... Sorry for the confusion...
 
If you ask if you could only do one of the two raise taxes or cut benefits, raise taxes wins out 2 to 1. As far as I can tell the only alternative that gets close to 50% approval is raising the cap. It is throwing someone else money at the problem.

Nope

I think most people realize that "raising taxes" means that their taxes will go up too.
 
Back
Top Bottom