Social Security questions

[TimCallahan]

I'm curious as to what contributors to this forum feel about Social Security. Do any posters feel that it's a dangerously socialist program? A Ponzi scheme? Running out of money? Intergenerational welfare?

In order to be completely transparent, I should note that both my wife and I collect Social Security. So, I'm far from either a disinterested party or in any way unbiased.

 

[Alt+F4]

Do any posters feel that it's a dangerously socialist program?

I don't.

A Ponzi scheme?

Doesn't fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Running out of money?

Probably.

Intergenerational welfare?

I don't think so. My parents are deceased and I still don't mind paying into Social Security. It's a safety net for those who may not or can't take care of themselves. I'm fine with that even if I don't get anything when I hit 67.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Do any posters feel that it's a dangerously socialist program?

I think it is a dangerous program that has communist (i.e., Marxist, in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means" kind of way) tendencies. I think it is dangerous because of its exploding costs.

A Ponzi scheme?

Perhaps, as another poster said, it isn't an "according to Hoyle" Ponzi scheme, but it's more along the lines of a Ponzi scheme crossed with a pyramid scam. Regardless, I think if you or I tried to invent our own, private, "retirement plan" that was structured like Social Security is structured, we'd probably be charged with fraud and sent to prison.

Running out of money?

Yes.

Intergenerational welfare?

Define, please.

 

[Puppycow]

Do any posters feel that it's a dangerously socialist program?

Nope.

A Ponzi scheme?

Nope.

Running out of money?

Yes, but the severity of the problem has been exaggerated. With a few adjustments it can be made sustainable for a long time.

Intergenerational welfare?

Intergenerational welfare goes both ways. Children spend about the first 18 to 24 years of their lives receiving welfare from the older generations, and we all inherit and benefit from the fruits of civilization which previous generations bestowed upon us. When old folks pass away, whatever they leave behind gets inherited by somebody.

I'd still almost always rather be born in the future rather than the past, other things being equal. Even Kings and Queens 100 or 200 years ago didn't enjoy any of the modern technologies that enrich our lives.

Paying for Social Security for old folks seems like a very reasonable deal when you consider all the benefits we enjoy thanks to older generations.

 

[lomiller]

Do any posters feel that it's a dangerously socialist program?

No

A Ponzi scheme?

It not a Ponzi scheme

Running out of money?

Not possible the way it's structured. SS pays benefits out of current contributions. The SS trust fund is there to smooth over demographic changes it's not a pension fund.

The only way it can run out of money is if people no longer pay into it. The worst that can happen is benefits could be reduced somewhat if payments were insufficient to fund benefits.

Intergenerational welfare?

Hmmm. While it does transfer wealth from working people to retired people I'm not sure it's intergenerational welfare since those working people owe a good bit of their wealth to the generation that came before them and built infrastructure and provided education.

 

[Robrob]

To answer all of your questions, just compare the poverty rates for the elderly between pre-SS and now.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think it is a dangerous program that has communist (i.e., Marxist, in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means" kind of way) tendencies. I think it is dangerous because of its exploding costs. . . . (snip) . . .

Actually, as noted here, probably the earliest Social Security system was originally instituted by the Austro-Hungarian Empire - a state not noted for revolutionary Marxism - in the late nineteenth century.

Also, I think you will find, on examination, that its costs really aren't "exploding."

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Actually, as noted here, probably the earliest Social Security system was originally instituted by the Austro-Hungarian Empire - a state not noted for revolutionary Marxism - in the late nineteenth century.

That a state did not, in general, practice "revolutionary Marxism" is not evidence that a specific program it instituted did not have communist tendencies.

Also, I think you will find, on examination, that its costs really aren't "exploding."

That probably depends on your definition of "exploding", but there is no arguing the fact that costs are rising.

 

[TimCallahan]

I think it is a dangerous program that has communist (i.e., Marxist, in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means" kind of way) tendencies. (snip) . . .

Taking a second look at this post, I realized there's a flaw in your reasoning I hadn't previously noticed. Social Security isn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means." The amount of money I get from Social Security is based on the amount I put in. For example, since my wife worked more years than I did (owing to a few years I was off "doing my thing" and not paying in to the system), she gets more money. A friend of ours, who died a few years back, was eligible only for a small amount, owing to his very spotty employment record.

 

[daredelvis]

I think it is a dangerous program that has communist (i.e., Marxist, in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means" kind of way) tendencies. I think it is dangerous because of its exploding costs.

If Social Security is communist, then sign me up comrade!

Daredelvis

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Guys, did you notice that there's something else with the initials SS?


I wonder why that would be...

 

[daredelvis]

Guys, did you notice that there's something else with the initials SS?


I wonder why that would be...

Only one of the most beautiful cars ever. Still not convincing me it is a bad idea.

Daredelvis

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Taking a second look at this post, I realized there's a flaw in your reasoning I hadn't previously noticed. Social Security isn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means." The amount of money I get from Social Security is based on the amount I put in. For example, since my wife worked more years than I did (owing to a few years I was off "doing my thing" and not paying in to the system), she gets more money. A friend of ours, who died a few years back, was eligible only for a small amount, owing to his very spotty employment record.

Someone's not counting all the ways in which a person can receive a Social Security payment.

(It's not me.)

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Guys, did you notice that there's something else with the initials SS?


I wonder why that would be...

Drive a Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS; roll with the power of Himmler!

 

[Bikewer]

I just turned 65. I will not be able to continue doing police work for more than a couple of years, and will have to supplement whatever position I'm able to get with my social security.
As many pundits have noted, a "Ponzi Scheme" is a criminal enterprise designed to enrich the operator while paying off early investors to create an illusion of solvency.

Most all pundits (at least the ones that seem to know what they're talking about) indicate that Social Security can be made self-sustaining with very minor tweaks.

Republicans are simply against the whole idea, being all about self-responsibility and "free markets" and all that. They want everyone busily managing their own retirement accounts, apparently oblivious to the fact that a fairly large segment of the population would be utterly unable to do so.
They could join the uninsured in the camps, I suppose.

 

[Bri]

Running out of money?

If we don't do anything at all, it will pay out about 75% of scheduled benefits through at least 2085 even when its trust funds are exhausted in 2036, as projected in the most recent Social Security trustees report:

Of course, there are some relatively minor adjustments that could be made to keep paying at 100% of scheduled benefits (including some combination of raising the payroll tax, removing the limits on taxable income, some sort of means testing, etc.), but Congress would have to agree on them.

There's an excellent article on Social Security from the Washington Post Fact Checker.

-Bri

 

[BobTheCoward]

If we don't do anything at all, it will pay out about 75% of scheduled benefits through at least 2085 even when its trust funds are exhausted in 2036, as projected in the most recent Social Security trustees report:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=744&pictureid=5092[/qimg]

Of course, there are some relatively minor adjustments that could be made to keep paying at 100% of scheduled benefits (including some combination of raising the payroll tax, removing the limits on taxable income, some sort of means testing, etc.), but Congress would have to agree on them.

There's an excellent article on Social Security from the Washington Post Fact Checker.

-Bri

Your website link gave me an idea. Pass legislation to scrap social security and unilaterally return the bonds back to the federal government for cancellation. Boom, I just cut 14% from the national debt overnight.

 

[TimCallahan]

Someone's not counting all the ways in which a person can receive a Social Security payment.

(It's not me.)

Okay, care to elaborate? As far as I know, the overwhelming majority of those receiving Social Security are retirees like me. Another significant, but much smaller, group are the disabled.

 

[BenBurch]

Your website link gave me an idea. Pass legislation to scrap social security and unilaterally return the bonds back to the federal government for cancellation. Boom, I just cut 14% from the national debt overnight.

How many people do you think would starve if you did that?

 

[Walter Ego]

I think it is a dangerous program that has communist (i.e., Marxist, in a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his means" kind of way) tendencies. I think it is dangerous because of its exploding costs.

Perhaps, as another poster said, it isn't an "according to Hoyle" Ponzi scheme, but it's more along the lines of a Ponzi scheme crossed with a pyramid scam. Regardless, I think if you or I tried to invent our own, private, "retirement plan" that was structured like Social Security is structured, we'd probably be charged with fraud and sent to prison.

So, given your views on the "communist" and the Ponzi scheme/pyramid scam nature of SS, you will not apply for SS benefits when you're eligible to do so? Assuming you're not collecting those benefits now, that is.