Is Social Security Welfare?

[CaptLouAlbano]

If you want to use the Ponzi scheme analogy, then the people who started getting paid SS back in 1935 were the winners.

But again, it never was the case that anybody paying into SS was investing for their own future. I don't think the government ever told that lie.

Actually is was. FDR proposed it so that it could protect Americans from a "poverty ridden old age". At the time a lot of people did not have a private pension, of course back then few people lived to my age. It was a mistake from the beginning which is why the Old Right opposed it.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

But who's pretending that? The government isn't. It's just the SS defenders who keep telling themselves that.

There's no shortage of government stooges who have presented it in that way. There's no shortage of people who have believed it.

I prefer to present it as a Ponzi Scheme because that's a scam people recognize. And this scam will end the same way that Ponzi Schemes end, which is also useful for people to understand.

 

[tony m]

An excellent article by Walter Williams puts SS into a perspective.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams101.html

excerpt:

The very first Social Security check went to Ida May Fuller in 1940. She paid just $24.75 in Social Security taxes but collected a total of $22,888.92 in benefits, getting back all she put into Social Security in a month. According to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Social Security Reform" (October 2002), by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, workers who retired in 1980 at age 65 got back all they put into Social Security, plus interest, in 2.8 years. Workers who retired at age 65 in 2002 will have to wait a total of 16.9 years to break even. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years. Workers entering the labor force today won't live long enough to get back even half of what they will put into Social Security. Social Security faces Ponzi's problem, not enough new "investors." In 1940, there were 160 workers paying into Social Security per retiree; today there are only 2.9 and falling.

 

[dinosaur]

Agreed, but we are so far from that at this point. Let's start with the Pentagon, the Fed, the litany of unconstitutional depts we have and cut, cut, cut. At the same time structure a system where we can phase out SS entirely. Though I do not think we have to "live a little leaner" the simple reduction of taxes and spending will kick start the economy and we will be just fine. The biggest drain on our economy is the govt - the only people that have to live leaner is the Feds

It can't be fixed until we are willing to give up the things that we feel entitled to. Try cutting those unconstitutional departments without cutting entitlements...I actually tried to run the numbers once. It isn't so easy and clean as all that. You can't do it without hitting the people will starve and children will be out on the street arguments.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

An excellent article by Walter Williams puts SS into a perspective.

http://lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams101.html

excerpt:

The very first Social Security check went to Ida May Fuller in 1940. She paid just $24.75 in Social Security taxes but collected a total of $22,888.92 in benefits, getting back all she put into Social Security in a month. According to a Congressional Research Service report titled "Social Security Reform" (October 2002), by Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, workers who retired in 1980 at age 65 got back all they put into Social Security, plus interest, in 2.8 years. Workers who retired at age 65 in 2002 will have to wait a total of 16.9 years to break even. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years. Workers entering the labor force today won't live long enough to get back even half of what they will put into Social Security. Social Security faces Ponzi's problem, not enough new "investors." In 1940, there were 160 workers paying into Social Security per retiree; today there are only 2.9 and falling.

That would be me right there. So I have 7 years left to break even still, if I live that long.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If you want to use the Ponzi scheme analogy, then the people who started getting paid SS back in 1935 were the winners.

But again, it never was the case that anybody paying into SS was investing for their own future. I don't think the government ever told that lie.

Call it what you want, it was a lie, Social Security Insurance.

Call me naive, studpid or whatever, but I and others based their investments (home, etc) on the lie.

I worked my ass off and was among the best of whatever I did. I started from a poor family, worked bailing hay and milking cows after school/summer, got married, worked as lawnmower mechanic, appliance mechanic, building golf course greens/driving ranges, carpenter, at 26 went to a 2 year college for communication and digital electronics, learned to program and became a Software Systems Prinicipal Architect.

Yep, I was uneducated in the ways of economics and assholes. I worked hard to do the right thing for my employer, and I thought those that were politicians were doing their job right for their employers, us. Boy, was I wrong.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It can't be fixed until we are willing to give up the things that we feel entitled to. Try cutting those unconstitutional departments without cutting entitlements...I actually tried to run the numbers once. It isn't so easy and clean as all that.

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

And I like Walter's solution, "Here's what might be a temporary fix: The federal government owns huge quantities of wasting assets – assets that are not producing anything – 650 million acres of land, almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. In exchange for those who choose to opt out of Social Security and forsake any future claim, why not pay them off with 40 or so acres of land? Doing so would give us breathing room to develop a free choice method to finance retirement."

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

Yep, give me back my devalued $136,000.00+ and we'll call it even.

 

[dinosaur]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that? If you look at the Williams piece above you, my wife and I are still 7 years away from getting what we paid in. I'd be more than willing to stop taking payments in 7 years, or better yet a lump sum now.

And I like Walter's solution, "Here's what might be a temporary fix: The federal government owns huge quantities of wasting assets – assets that are not producing anything – 650 million acres of land, almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. In exchange for those who choose to opt out of Social Security and forsake any future claim, why not pay them off with 40 or so acres of land? Doing so would give us breathing room to develop a free choice method to finance retirement."

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay...someone other than the entity who stole it.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Yep, give me back my devalued $136,000.00+ and we'll call it even.

Imagine how well off you would be right now, if instead of paying that tax every week you would have put money down on an income producing asset instead?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay.

Well sadly my friend, you'll never sell that to the public. Maybe the idea will gain some steam on libertarian forums, but in the real world it will never happen. We need a phase out solution, and something that takes care of the people who are in some way dependent on the money, and also doesn't cause disruption to the economy by sucking all the money out of the economy as it does in my case. Like I said earlier, my SS payment is less than my total tax liabillity, so in my case I would simply pay more to the feds, and that is never good.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

And I do not feel entitled to retrieve the money that was stolen from me, if it means that someone else will have to pay...someone other than the entity who stole it.

If you steal something from me, and then parade it around in front of me, we're going to have an interesting few minutes together.

I do feel that if you steal something from me, you should return it.

 

[dinosaur]

Well sadly my friend, you'll never sell that to the public. Maybe the idea will gain some steam on libertarian forums, but in the real world it will never happen. We need a phase out solution, and something that takes care of the people who are in some way dependent on the money, and also doesn't cause disruption to the economy by sucking all the money out of the economy as it does in my case. Like I said earlier, my SS payment is less than my total tax liabillity, so in my case I would simply pay more to the feds, and that is never good.

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

 

[dinosaur]

If you steal something from me, and then parade it around in front of me, we're going to have an interesting few minutes together.

I do feel that if you steal something from me, you should return it.

Right, but if I steal it, then would you go collect what you are owed from someone innocent? That is the question.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

I don't have a solution per se. I believe what Ron Paul proposed is pretty damn good and something Congress should look at.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Right, but if I steal it, then would you go collect what you are owed from someone innocent? That is the question.

My apologies. After re-reading what you actually said to start with, it is more complicated. Sounds like you'd require the entire organization disband. I'd prefer a solution where restitution is made in some way. They won't be disbanding either way, not willfully, and they fear no authority that would make them disband for a crime such as theft.

 

[Yieu]

I feel entitled to my own money, how's that?

You appear to feel entitled to the money earned by current workers -- money they could use, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, partly because you and others take a portion of their paycheck. Your money is long gone, spent on previous retirees.

I just want out of the system. I will not see any of what I pay in, so it is not any more fair for others to get the money I'm paying in now.

It is stealing from the young and poor to give to the old and rich.

 

[James Madison]

Except that your solution will not take care of those people. They will end up suffering.

To be honest, suffering at this point is pretty much inevitable. You can't build a house of cards without it crumbling to the ground.

 

[loveableteddybear]

That really makes we want to say FU!

Why, because the truth bomb blew up in your house?

 

[loveableteddybear]

And you know this....how, exactly?

Because saving is a behavior, it has nothing to do with how much money someone makes necessarily. Savers will work even menial jobs and have good savings. Social Security essentially gives people a false sense of security that they should spend the money they make now like drunken sailors.

The fact that the average citizen of CHINA, where the average income is much lower, has much higher personal savings proves what I said is fact.

Now go cry somewhere else you old geezers, if it were up to me I'd pull your life support plug right now, I don't care if you think social security is payback. You're robbing from me, because some geezer before you robbed from you. Boy, that's fair.