On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive? In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
That is a different issue than social security (in the US that is) "social security" in general terms can mean a lot of things However the idea of 1. Saving for retirement 2. Paying some type of insurance in case something happens and you can no longer work. [Which are what is covered by the US Social Security program] Are something people are capable of doing for themselves.
People who were never able to get a job for reasons other than laziness (poor luck, bad family, bad genes, etc.). That is a different issue.
What makes you think everyone that has been paying into SS since its inception has been capable of saving money? What makes you think they would have been able to if they hadn't been paying into SS? It was a paltry 6% back then. Have you seen your parents living beyond their means? Is this just a way of rebelling against them and their extravagant lifestyle?
Or do you think its more likely that the majority of the baby-boomers out there have worked hard and spended hard to make sure your life is as comfortable as possible, have not had the luxury of setting aside tons of cash for their own retirement, and chosen to survive on little else but social security for the remainder of their lives?
Them, and the Gen Xers spoiled us. We didn't ask for it, but they did. Now its up to us to make sure they're comfortable.
Here's another thing....social security won't generate enough income for you to stop working. SAVE YOUR OWN MONEY. Get a 401k or a Roth IRA and drop a percentage of your paycheck into it. Start doing it immediately if you haven't already.
If you are one of those foolish people who thinks social security is enough to pay the bills, I have some great news for you. + Show Spoiler +
On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive? In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
That is a different issue than social security (in the US that is) "social security" in general terms can mean a lot of things However the idea of 1. Saving for retirement 2. Paying some type of insurance in case something happens and you can no longer work. [Which are what is covered by the US Social Security program] Are something people are capable of doing for themselves.
People who were never able to get a job for reasons other than laziness (poor luck, bad family, bad genes, etc.). That is a different issue.
What makes you think everyone that has been paying into SS since its inception has been capable of saving money? What makes you think they would have been able to if they hadn't been paying into SS? It was a paltry 6% back then. Have you seen your parents living beyond their means? Is this just a way of rebelling against them and their extravagant lifestyle?
Or do you think its more likely that the majority of the baby-boomers out there have worked hard and spended hard to make sure your life is as comfortable as possible, have not had the luxury of setting aside tons of cash for their own retirement, and chosen to survive on little else but social security for the remainder of their lives?
Them, and the Gen Xers spoiled us. We didn't ask for it, but they did. Now its up to us to make sure they're comfortable.
Irrelevant. The topic of discussion is not about taking away Social Security from old people. It's about giving young people the option to not pay in and not receive when they are old.
On February 02 2011 05:19 Offhand wrote: The average adult American is 8 grand in debt. Consider that before making the call as to whether or not they're capable of saving for their future.
What does that have to do with anything? You act like mortgaging a home is a bad thing. Just because someone has debt doesn't mean that they don't have money. Donald Trump has debt. Bill Gates has debt. Oprah has debt. So what. Anyone with a car payment or a mortgage or a credit card balance has debt and that doesn't mean they are starving or haven't saved money.
On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive? In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
That is a different issue than social security (in the US that is) "social security" in general terms can mean a lot of things However the idea of 1. Saving for retirement 2. Paying some type of insurance in case something happens and you can no longer work. [Which are what is covered by the US Social Security program] Are something people are capable of doing for themselves.
People who were never able to get a job for reasons other than laziness (poor luck, bad family, bad genes, etc.). That is a different issue.
What makes you think everyone that has been paying into SS since its inception has been capable of saving money? What makes you think they would have been able to if they hadn't been paying into SS? It was a paltry 6% back then. Have you seen your parents living beyond their means? Is this just a way of rebelling against them and their extravagant lifestyle?
Or do you think its more likely that the majority of the baby-boomers out there have worked hard and spended hard to make sure your life is as comfortable as possible, have not had the luxury of setting aside tons of cash for their own retirement, and chosen to survive on little else but social security for the remainder of their lives?
Them, and the Gen Xers spoiled us. We didn't ask for it, but they did. Now its up to us to make sure they're comfortable.
Irrelevant. The topic of discussion is not about taking away Social Security from old people. It's about giving young people the option to not pay in and not receive when they are old.
So, the 90% of people too short-sighted to plan ahead opt-out, go with their own retirement funds, and a handful get completely screwed over when they run into bad luck. Do you want to run that risk? I hope you don't live anywhere on planet earth, because there are natural and economic disasters going on no matter where you live and where you put your money.
Oh, not to mention, even for the people who have saved up their own retirement, Social Security makes up about 40% of it. Its not like the SS money is being literally taken away from you, never to be seen again. You benefit just as much as everyone else, and have that added security blanket in case the shit really hits the fan for you.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
If only you knew... Ok. I'll tell you. This doesn't work in the US because right now we have more people retiring than people entering the work force. What do you think happens now? The social security system starts to run a huge deficit, but wait! It can't be! It was never designed to be in the red. It was designed to always maintain itself, but it's not going to work. I doubt I'll ever retire with a S.S. income. It'll probably be gone by the time I retire, unless the government starts pouring huge amounts of money into it to keep it alive until all the baby boomers pass away. I don't see that happening though.
As for the question in the OP. No, I would not opt into voluntary programs that are designed to help me in the long run. I believe programs that help the disabled and people who are down on their luck and need help should not be voluntary. Those should be mandatory, but things like Social Security income need to go. If someone wants to waste all their money by being frivolous in their 30s and 40s, then they should also work at an old age. It was their choice. I prefer to save for my own future. I don't need the Government's help.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
Collective defense and a standing military aren't the same thing.
Humans are jerks, plain and simple. We're petty, arrogant, jealous, and greedy. We need just as much protection from each other than we do from a "scary foreign enemy". A government serves to support and enforce the structured society that we've created for ourselves. The structured society that keeps your shit from getting stolen, keeps me from getting raped on the way home from work, and generally maintains that we don't start killing each other over various disagreements.
Or should we just trust in genuine human kindness to treat everyone else as we'd like to be treated ourselves? Our track record with such a system isn't great.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
If only you knew... Ok. I'll tell you. This doesn't work in the US because right now we have more people retiring than people entering the work force. What do you think happens now? The social security starts to run a huge deficit, but wait! It can't be! It was never designed to be in the red. It was designed to always maintain itself, but it's not going to work. I doubt I'll ever retire with a S.S. income. It'll probably be gone by the time I retire.
This is the common misconception.
We saw this coming. If you're talking about 'going into the red' meaning a negative bank balance, you're wrong. There is a massive surplus invested all over the place and yes, that surplus will start to drain as baby boomers retire and will continue for the 20-30 years they have left. When they start to kick the bucket, it'll normalize itself and it'll 'go back into the green'.
What if things like Social Security, Medicare, etc were voluntary?
By this, I mean that you have the option to not participate in this program offered by the government. You could waive your SS tax, and in return you wouldn't get any money from the government once you retire.
If these programs were optional, would you participate in them?
Personally, I wouldn't. I've always seen Social Security as the government taking a percentage of your pay, and putting it away for you, so that when you retire you'll have income. I believe I'm responsible enough to manage my own finances, and don't need to government to do it for me.
The Social Security Non-Crisis (starts at 2 min 45 sec)
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
If only you knew... Ok. I'll tell you. This doesn't work in the US because right now we have more people retiring than people entering the work force. What do you think happens now? The social security starts to run a huge deficit, but wait! It can't be! It was never designed to be in the red. It was designed to always maintain itself, but it's not going to work. I doubt I'll ever retire with a S.S. income. It'll probably be gone by the time I retire.
This is the common misconception.
We saw this coming. If you're talking about 'going into the red' meaning a negative bank balance, you're wrong. There is a massive surplus invested all over the place and yes, that surplus will start to drain as baby boomers retire and will continue for the 20-30 years they have left. When they start to kick the bucket, it'll normalize itself and it'll 'go back into the green'.
The problem is it can't have a negative balance. Where is the money going to come from? The government? Here are the figures from the SS Administration itself.
* Begin paying out more than it takes in as revenues in 2017. * Exhaust its "trust fund" in 2041. * Require $4.7 trillion in extra revenue to pay estimated benefits for the next 75 years.
That's $4.7 TRILLION. To put it into perspective, China's GDP is $5.7 trillion. Even they couldn't afford to bail us out of the S.S. mess that's going to happen.
On February 02 2011 04:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote: Social security is a safety net and I welcome it wholeheartedly. There are people out there who can't take care of themselves. How are they supposed to survive? In Belgium it also has alot fiscal advantages/reductions. True you pay alot of money for something you probably can control yourselve but what happens when you get sick for 3 months and can't go to work? Without the system you'll have zero income. WITH the system you'll have saved up money so you can use it when you need it.
Ofcourse, there's allways freeloaders... But for that you have laws and stuff.
Edit: On topic, I'd be more open to choose wether or not you want you taxes to go to for example military spending or ecological development.
If someone is too stupid to save their money that is their problem. Are you saying you aren't smart enough to save money on your own? I doubt that is the case.
Yeah, there's a lot of people out there too stupid to not be disabled. Fuck those guys.
That is a different issue than social security (in the US that is) "social security" in general terms can mean a lot of things However the idea of 1. Saving for retirement 2. Paying some type of insurance in case something happens and you can no longer work. [Which are what is covered by the US Social Security program] Are something people are capable of doing for themselves.
People who were never able to get a job for reasons other than laziness (poor luck, bad family, bad genes, etc.). That is a different issue.
What makes you think everyone that has been paying into SS since its inception has been capable of saving money? What makes you think they would have been able to if they hadn't been paying into SS? It was a paltry 6% back then. Have you seen your parents living beyond their means? Is this just a way of rebelling against them and their extravagant lifestyle?
Or do you think its more likely that the majority of the baby-boomers out there have worked hard and spended hard to make sure your life is as comfortable as possible, have not had the luxury of setting aside tons of cash for their own retirement, and chosen to survive on little else but social security for the remainder of their lives?
Them, and the Gen Xers spoiled us. We didn't ask for it, but they did. Now its up to us to make sure they're comfortable.
Irrelevant. The topic of discussion is not about taking away Social Security from old people. It's about giving young people the option to not pay in and not receive when they are old.
So, the 90% of people too short-sighted to plan ahead opt-out, go with their own retirement funds, and a handful get completely screwed over when they run into bad luck. Do you want to run that risk? I hope you don't live anywhere on planet earth, because there are natural and economic disasters going on no matter where you live and where you put your money.
Oh, not to mention, even for the people who have saved up their own retirement, Social Security makes up about 40% of it. Its not like the SS money is being literally taken away from you, never to be seen again. You benefit just as much as everyone else, and have that added security blanket in case the shit really hits the fan for you.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
Was he banned cause he said selfish america? Look at the poll results. Banners been riduclous lately. I got banned for "being a douche" in the swearing/opinion thread when the guy specifically asked if he sounded stupid. wtf tl.
Edit: to be on topic. Yes, I like Canada's tax system and our social security programs. I'm glad I live here.
So people who don't want to pay a bankrupt government to fund a bankrupt program are either selfish or stupid?
You can't really compare Canada or any other country's social programs to the USA, you aren't wasting your money on half the world's military budget. If US wasn't, it could afford all sorts of social programs and still have lower taxes than it has right now.
Wish I was born there, I would be glad too.
Have you ever looked at the budget. Our defense budget, appropriations for wars, and military contracts aren't even close to what we spent on our social programs already. Even if you reduced all our military spending to 0 we'd have trouble coming up even. Keep in mind that military is the ONLY reason gov't exists. It's why people made gov'ts in the first place, it's the only power that the founding fathers wanted the federal gov't to truly have, and it's why we have the power system we do.
We might spend a ton of money compared to the rest of the world, but for a nation with our economy and GDP it's not actually that much. In the end, we could take on the entire world's armed forces if we had to. That kind of security is what we pay for. If you don't value security, don't have gov't.
Canada would be conquered by the Japanese or Russians or someone else by now if it wasn't for the US. Think about that one.
Forming a military is the only reason for governments to exist?
You can't seriously believe that, can you?
It's not a belief, it's a fact. All societies are built around the idea of protection, that in groups you're safer from outside threats than individually. Ever since the stone age, mankind has been grouping together so that they could hunt large prey safely. When farming replaced foraging, people had to bind together in communities to protect their work, their crops, from outside threats, such as raids from other tribes. In feudal england, nobles pledged loyalty to the king to protect their lands by paying a tax to the king so that he would use his army to defend them.
Name one reason why gov't should exist beyond defense.
No it is not the only reason. Preventing internal conflicts by enforcing rules/laws is another important one. Also maybe you could look at the actual word government, what is the root of that word, maybe it has something to do with the purpose of the government ?
Hmm, no you are correct. I was rushing my response and forgot about that very important facet. That being said, the state resolves disputes between parties for the same reason that they hold a military - to protect the people. The state protects people from each other as well as from outside. Police, courts, and a system of law are the way a state manages internal security, just as a military and diplomats manage an external security.
I should have said that gov't only exists to protect the people which it governs from other people. That would be correct, whereas my previous statement was not.
No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
If only you knew... Ok. I'll tell you. This doesn't work in the US because right now we have more people retiring than people entering the work force. What do you think happens now? The social security starts to run a huge deficit, but wait! It can't be! It was never designed to be in the red. It was designed to always maintain itself, but it's not going to work. I doubt I'll ever retire with a S.S. income. It'll probably be gone by the time I retire.
This is the common misconception.
We saw this coming. If you're talking about 'going into the red' meaning a negative bank balance, you're wrong. There is a massive surplus invested all over the place and yes, that surplus will start to drain as baby boomers retire and will continue for the 20-30 years they have left. When they start to kick the bucket, it'll normalize itself and it'll 'go back into the green'.
The problem is it can't have a negative balance. Where is the money going to come from? The government? Here are the figures from the SS Administration itself.
* Begin paying out more than it takes in as revenues in 2017. * Exhaust its "trust fund" in 2041. * Require $4.7 trillion in extra revenue to pay estimated benefits for the next 75 years.
That's $4.7 TRILLION. To put it into perspective, China's GDP is $5.7 trillion. Even they couldn't afford to bail us out of the S.S. mess that's going to happen.
No, it can't, but why would it?
It can be completely self-sustainable by reducing payments out, or increasing payments in. And that's 4.7 trillion dollars that need to be made over the next 75 years, not 4.7 trillion that is needed RIGHT NOW.
Its all estimates. They look bad. Changes will be made, to ensure to system continues to run. Our generation is probably going to have to foot a big chunk of that bill. Considering how almost painfully easy our lives have been relative to say, the kids dying by the truckload in the 40s, or those having to work their way back from the ground up after the great depression, and generation X-ers sacrificing their own comfortable retirement so that their kids don't live below the poverty line, I'd say some higher taxes are a small price to pay.
On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote: No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs.
I'll preface this by saying that I am not an economist in any way. I have only a basic grasp of how the stock market works. I sort of feel that I understand the general theory of it, but honestly I haven't a goddamn clue what happens on wall street or in any other major stock market.
However, to move onto my point, can *everyone* really make an "investment portfolio" that's going to pay off? Can you really guarantee that a bunch of stock is going to stay solid and continue growing until you're ready to retire? If it was as easy as "yeah just go get a pro portfolio u noob", wouldn't more people do that? One of my older cousins is an economist, and works whatever job it is that economists do. He lost a *shitload* of money in the 2000 or so market crash, and he's told me quite plainly that he'll likely never get back all the money he'd put into it. My father tells a similar story. So even the experts can mess up and make mistakes. I find it a bit unrealistic to assume that everyone and their mother can make sound financial decisions and that every investment portfolio is magically guaranteed success over a very long period of time.
Secondly, isn't a 401k plan quite similar to social security? Sort of a privatized version of such? Your employer takes a chunk of your paycheck, puts it off into a magical account somewhere, and you get it back when you retire. I know this system really appeals to many Americans, simply because we're so goddamn hard for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality, and value individual success highly over community success. Lots of Americans hate the idea that their tax dollars go to anyone but themselves. But what about those poor bastards who had 401ks with Enron? People can still get screwed over. A government run 401k type policy is basically what Social Security is trying to accomplish, no?
Finally, do you *really* think that if people were given the option to stop paying SS taxes, that they'd all just go and invest it soundly? They wouldn't splurge on a new TV instead? (Or more realistically in the current economy, pay off that late utility bill. ) A lot of people just plain cannot realistically plan for the future. I know I'm guilty of this for sure. But here we are, a bunch of (and I'm going to generalize here), well educated, mostly wealthy or at least middle class, folks with the leisure time available to spend having philosophical and economic debates on TL.
There's a *lot* of people out there who never had the same opportunities that you or I did.
It's always interesting to me how many 16-25 year olds think they know it all. Yes Social Security is inefficient, but when you say it shouldn't be necessary and that you could do better privately, you're overlooking so many scenarios.
So you're going along earning your money, putting some aside, and then you're in an accident that renders you unable to work permanently. Sure you may have health insurance for the time being, but eventually you won't be able to afford it. Even if you have other forms of insurance (Aflac comes to mind) that pay you money when you have to miss work, I don't believe those are indefinite either. Eventually, you're going to be in a situation where it won't be feasible for a private institution to continue to take care of you. It won't be in their best interest to do so. And what about a scenario like a woman who stays at home to take care of the kids and the husband dies or worse, he just abandons her and the kids. She has no education or maybe she has a disability and can't work. What then? Should these people just starve?
The arrogance of youth (or the ignorance of youth, they are one and the same) means that you don't consider these scenarios until you are in them. I agree that we are on an unsustainable path financially as a nation, but opting out of taxation programs would just accelerate that process violently and I promise you that your life will be much much worse if/when our finances collapse.
On February 01 2011 23:25 mcc wrote: Some posters think of Medicare and Social Security as services that will provide them directly with some benefits. But their point should be safety net, because if you get rid of them, what are you going to do with the big percentage of people that will be stupid enough or unlucky enough to be crippled by medical debt or no money in old age. Are you going to let them rot on the street or die ? Charities won't cut it, and so some of these people will turn to crime others will be begging. So think of it as paying for lowering likelihood of being robbed or killed and avoiding the inconvenience of tripping on dead bodies on the street (This is slightly satirical, because for most people ethical argument supported by reality that most people are irresponsible and stupid is enough to see the need for those programs to be mandatory, but for libertarian extremists argument based on selfish interest has to be provided , not that it will convince anyone ).
Charities won't cut it? Wow, I am so convinced.
People really still think the US government is responsible and cares about them? Really?
Private companies will provide better services than government ? Wow, I am so convinced.
You see I can do the same. Your statements are also opinions like mine and are in their current form also nothing more than 'because I say so'. We could discuss the ability of charities to provide necessary funds, but it would lead nowhere since there is no proof only some partial indicators and that will not convince you, so why bother. And I do not think that any government is responsible or cares. Do not personalize the government, it is a system/tool and not a person. Some governments work better some worse, yes in first world seems American one is one of the more dysfunctional, but that does not mean it cannot be fixed.
The fundamental dichotomy is between profit management and bureaucratic management. These have very different ends
On February 02 2011 05:59 barkles wrote: No one in their right mind would voluntarily pay for social security. Why wouldn't you just take that money and put it in an investment portfolio and make a better return than what the govt will give you?
There are also significant concerns about the financial solvency of these programs.
I'll preface this by saying that I am not an economist in any way. I have only a basic grasp of how the stock market works. I sort of feel that I understand the general theory of it, but honestly I haven't a goddamn clue what happens on wall street or in any other major stock market.
However, to move onto my point, can *everyone* really make an "investment portfolio" that's going to pay off? Can you really guarantee that a bunch of stock is going to stay solid and continue growing until you're ready to retire? If it was as easy as "yeah just go get a pro portfolio u noob", wouldn't more people do that? One of my older cousins is an economist, and works whatever job it is that economists do. He lost a *shitload* of money in the 2000 or so market crash, and he's told me quite plainly that he'll likely never get back all the money he'd put into it. My father tells a similar story. So even the experts can mess up and make mistakes. I find it a bit unrealistic to assume that everyone and their mother can make sound financial decisions and that every investment portfolio is magically guaranteed success over a very long period of time.
Secondly, isn't a 401k plan quite similar to social security? Sort of a privatized version of such? Your employer takes a chunk of your paycheck, puts it off into a magical account somewhere, and you get it back when you retire. I know this system really appeals to many Americans, simply because we're so goddamn hard for the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality, and value individual success highly over community success. Lots of Americans hate the idea that their tax dollars go to anyone but themselves. But what about those poor bastards who had 401ks with Enron? People can still get screwed over. A government run 401k type policy is basically what Social Security is trying to accomplish, no?
Finally, do you *really* think that if people were given the option to stop paying SS taxes, that they'd all just go and invest it soundly? They wouldn't splurge on a new TV instead? (Or more realistically in the current economy, pay off that late utility bill. ) A lot of people just plain cannot realistically plan for the future. I know I'm guilty of this for sure. But here we are, a bunch of (and I'm going to generalize here), well educated, mostly wealthy or at least middle class, folks with the leisure time available to spend having philosophical and economic debates on TL.
There's a *lot* of people out there who never had the same opportunities that you or I did.
Excellent excellent post. The idea that we can all get rich together on the stock market with our 401k's is a myth. As often as not, when you make money on the market, someone else is losing money to facillitate that. There is a general perception that everyone lost tons of money when the housing bubble burst. However, there was a small group of shrewd individuals who spotted the trend before everyone else and bet against it and made BILLIONS when the subprime mortgage market went belly up (these people were the ones that AIG owed so much money to). I am not criticizing these people at all, they made brilliant decisions to go against the grain and momentum of the market and they were rewarded appropriately for their risk. Anyway, the moral of the story is, in order to make a buck, someone else is losing a buck.
On February 01 2011 16:57 LyRa wrote: If they were optional and people had the choice not to pay - they probably wouldn't.
Yep, because people in general are stupid.
Those taxes are not just for your future, they are for those who already need the money. You are giving the money to the community, so those that are retired already can use it, people that are ill can get medical care, etc.
In turn for paying those taxes you can expect people to pay for you when you get old or require medical care.
I don't know the correct english term, but in germany we call it a "generation contract". This generation pays for the previous, so the next will pay for us, knowing that those after them will pay for them.
Of course this doesn't work in the selfish USA, where everyone only cares about himself.
I pay my taxes and would pay them if they were voluntary, i don't even care about getting any tax refunds because in the end, the money will be used for the community and i trust in the government to use it to it's best ability for the good of everyone.
User was temp banned for this post.
If only you knew... Ok. I'll tell you. This doesn't work in the US because right now we have more people retiring than people entering the work force. What do you think happens now? The social security starts to run a huge deficit, but wait! It can't be! It was never designed to be in the red. It was designed to always maintain itself, but it's not going to work. I doubt I'll ever retire with a S.S. income. It'll probably be gone by the time I retire.
This is the common misconception.
We saw this coming. If you're talking about 'going into the red' meaning a negative bank balance, you're wrong. There is a massive surplus invested all over the place and yes, that surplus will start to drain as baby boomers retire and will continue for the 20-30 years they have left. When they start to kick the bucket, it'll normalize itself and it'll 'go back into the green'.
The problem is it can't have a negative balance. Where is the money going to come from? The government? Here are the figures from the SS Administration itself.
* Begin paying out more than it takes in as revenues in 2017. * Exhaust its "trust fund" in 2041. * Require $4.7 trillion in extra revenue to pay estimated benefits for the next 75 years.
That's $4.7 TRILLION. To put it into perspective, China's GDP is $5.7 trillion. Even they couldn't afford to bail us out of the S.S. mess that's going to happen.
No, it can't, but why would it?
It can be completely self-sustainable by reducing payments out, or increasing payments in. And that's 4.7 trillion dollars that need to be made over the next 75 years, not 4.7 trillion that is needed RIGHT NOW.
Its all estimates. They look bad. Changes will be made, to ensure to system continues to run. Our generation is probably going to have to foot a big chunk of that bill. Considering how almost painfully easy our lives have been relative to say, the kids dying by the truckload in the 40s, or those having to work their way back from the ground up after the great depression, and generation X-ers sacrificing their own comfortable retirement so that their kids don't live below the poverty line, I'd say some higher taxes are a small price to pay.
Most people here have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and will be surprised to hear that the United States among industrialized states has probably the highest average number of working hours and, in amazing counterpoint, some of the worst benefits, and has seen wages stagnant or decline while these working hours increase meanwhile a tiny elite have been making out like bandits.
In other words these people in the United States who feel for some social net involving health care and social security are the most "lazy ass" people in the world working almost no hours, who are too "stupid" to save money for retirement and driving a "Lexus and BMW" paid for by other people's taxes.
For a reality check of real economics and "greater working insecurity" --Alan Greenspan
EPT
, not that it will convince anyone ).
