Social Security is on the brink of demise--sadly

Discussion in 'Social Security' started by pjohns, Feb 8, 2013.

  1. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you can post without the the insults (and I find it very difficult to take seriously any people who rely upon these; it is usually a strong indicator that they have no truly compelling arguments), I would just suggest that you read Suicide of the West. Jonah Goldberg--its author--is far more intellectual than I am.

    Or, in fact, than most people are.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  2. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wait. Insults? You mean the part about thinking a little bit? If so, I was trying to say it isn't hard to see my point. Sorry if it came across and insulting. Or was it something else?
     
  3. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think that the final paragraph--and especially the last half of it (the part about my being "confused" and "misinformed")--should qualify.

    I am more than happy to discuss anything--in a dispassionate and cerebral manner.

    But I do not much care for the passionate and the visceral, in political/philosophical discussions.
     
  4. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Understood. But it is an objective fact that most people are confused by the propaganda that they don't believe they've been subjected to, and then they talk about socialism being state control of industry which never was Marx's description of socialism, and they talk about the collapse of communist societies that never existed. And all because they are confused by the propaganda. After all, you did say "Socialism, as he points out, is really a political system--not an economic system" and that isn't at all true. See what I'm saying?
     
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Perhaps there is a distinction--which you may not be making--between the theories of Das Kapital (or even The Communist Manifesto) and Marxism as it has historically been practiced.

    Although I do not care for either--to say the very least--I am not much concerned about simple theories that, in their purest form, never see the light of day.
     
  6. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But Marxism as it has been "practiced" is not a strict science. Marx provided the most detailed, in-depth analysis of capitalism ever produced. He didn't ever way how socialism should be pursued. Most people don't know that, and that is yet another aspect of the propaganda we've been fed. Hence, Marx and Marxism cannot logically be blamed for strategies that developed on how to create a socialist society. All we can say is that those strategies not only failed, but were highly objectionable for many reasons.
     
  7. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    13,405
    Likes Received:
    4,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Socialism has been used in Asia, South America, Mexico, and Europe. Hybrid capitalism-socialism governments are working in Europe now.

    US uses socialistic systems: police and fire departments, public school districts, city and state highway and road departments, and so forth.

    Marxism and democracy are best described as governing systems.

    Socialism and capitalism are best described as economic systems.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    324
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And just how would you like to see Marxism implemented?

    Would you like to see the abolition of all private property?

    Would you like to see an all-powerful state (to which the people must submit)?

    Or what?
     
  9. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    So you think Marx's amateur plagiarism of Smith was the most in depth analysis of capitalism?

    And not Smith's extensive, methodical writings on moral philosophy pertaining to capitalism?
     
    pjohns likes this.
  10. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,727
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Couldn't they just raise the social security tax a bit, and give out only a flat check to everyone of say $1400 a month (for one person) with a realistic COLA formulae and give that regardless of how much they contributed and lift the income taxable to say $200,000 this way its there but you will get X amount for SS and then you would need if you wanted more money to save money and invest. I don't see why it should be counted on as more than if you get it you won't go hungry and can rent a simple place to live and use mass transit of course I would add in some food stamps in a special program and move poor seniors into Medicaid over Medicare if it would pose a financial burden with a health care deduction of a flat $100 a month to go into that program as ideas to work with.
     
  11. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Social Security is fundamentally flawed.

    It's funding issues stem from the fact that the dollars you pay in, especially in younger years, and completely worthless due to inflation by the time you become eligible to collect. The interest collected by Social Security is just the result of other taxes paid, so not really interest, but just another tax.

    Individual investment accounts funded by FICA, and with limited investment options along the lines of the TSP unless an individual goes through a lengthy exemption process to self direct their investments would be our best bet. Not to mention that in 50-60 years we could probably fund a major chuck of government just from a modest "management" fee charged on trust fund assets.
     
  12. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    637
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ALL monies received by our government, including FICA taxes, is spent. The so-called 'trust funds' are now shown as a separate debt owed by our government not the public and is currently as of 20 August 2018 $5,704,306,134,188.17 and earn interest which in the end is paid by the public. Our government earns no money except for that which it takes from the public. By law, as long as there are persons working and paying social security taxes there will be payments, but by law those payments may be reduced to what the receipts are capable of paying.
    When it becomes necessary to reduce social security payments, government will likely decide to make it a part of the welfare system funded by the general tax fund making voters more receptive to raising taxes whenever needed to continue making the same payments.
     
  13. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    22,035
    Likes Received:
    4,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What, NASA is squandering literally shedloads of dollars on crap probes, landers, rovers with silly names, and **** knows what other stuff, but your Social Security system is under strain? So why the hell don't you complain to your Congress rep? It's what you pay them for.
     
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. You really don't understand the Social Security system! Look......

    No, that's not a funding issue. SS is a pay-as-you-go system. The dollars you paid in when you first began working were used to pay the benefits of people who had already retired. But that aside, if it were true that those dollars became anything near "worthless" by the time you retired, then that would mean it is completely foolish and a losing game to invest anything at anytime for retirement or anything else.

    The funding problem for SS has several causes. First, the baby boomer cohort is of unprecedented size and is currently reaching traditional retirement ages. Second, life spans are becoming longer, meaning retiring baby boomers will have longer retirements. Third, fertility rates are decreasing. During the height of the baby boom, women were having between 3.5 and 4 children on average during their lifetimes. The 2015 Trustee’s Report expects the long-run fertility rate in the United States to be just 2.These trends mean fewer workers available to support more retirees. Throughout its history, the ratio of covered workers contributing to Social Security relative to the number of retirement and survivor beneficiaries has been on a gradual decline. In 2000, there were four workers per retired beneficiary. This had fallen to 3.5 by 2014. The 2015 Trustee’s Report predicted 2.6 contributors per retiree by 2030. With recipients of disability benefits added in, they expect that number to drop to 2.2. As the ratio of workers to beneficiaries becomes more and more misaligned, new contributions alone are more and more inadequate.


    You would do well to watch this video:
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-pension-gamble/

    Pensions were doing fine in the 80s and 90s. Then we had the dot-com bubble burst and Pension assets did what the market did: they crashed. But the month-to-month need to pay out monthly benefits to millions of retirees remained, so that at the bottom one dollar in the pension fund was a fraction of what it had been worth prior to the crash. Yet it had to be paid. That meant paying out the equivalent of a far greater portion of the Fund than it had been, thus depleting the fund further and faster than prior to the crash. And any attempt to restore the Fund was thwarted by the need for payouts. Money in/money out. Big losses resulted for the pension plans and recovery was difficult.

    Then we had the 2008 crash which did it again. By now the pension plans were seeing lots of red ink on the horizon, and they decided to take desperate steps with high risk investments. They turned to hedge funds. And the hedge funds took huge commissions and fees, but they didn't provide the needed returns. And that resulted in a repetition of pension funds going bankrupt or terminating operation.

    That is what you are asking for with your SS funds if you call for its investment in equities. And that is why SS was designed to invest in fixed, secure assets. The problem it created was one of congress being able and willing to spend the proceeds of sale for Treasury securities to the SS Trust Fund. THAT, and that alone.... spending by congress,..... is the only reason it is said (falsely) that SS is a cause of increasing national debt. It is not. The spending of the proceeds of sale is the cause.
     
  15. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    3,476
    Likes Received:
    718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A pretty good income if you have no debt, children to care for, and no house payment, I'd say.
     
  16. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    "Pay as you go" is the basis of all Ponzi Schemes.

    A dollar I invest today becomes many more dollars as time goes on, while Social Security realizes almost no real compounded growth. Hell, my primary residence, in the three years I've owned it, has given me a greater return than I'll ever see from Social Security(in constant, inflation adjusted dollars).

    Social Security has been in almost constant, unending crisis for generations. Society is changing, and we no longer require population growth, so perhaps we should ditch a an outdated, near century old pension model that anticipated the average person having 4 kids.
     
  17. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then please name the person who started it and continues to benefit from it at the cost of those who joined. Plus, it is named "OASDI" which stands for "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance". Note "insurance".


    You have no personal account in S.S. and this is how it was designed to be. At one time it had no Trust Fund as none was considered to be needed. Then one was added to help us get through the Baby Boomer phase. You also pay into unemployment insurance and may draw more than you paid in, or less, and the excess is lost in the end because it is "insurance" and not a personal investment account.


    Then you probably didn't bother to factor in your mortgage insurance payments and carrying costs (insurance and standard maintenance mostly).
    But you're comparing apples and oranges. You have personal ownership of your home. You don't have a personal SS account. Your home is an "equity asset". You SS account and unemployment insurance are insurance accounts. Apples and oranges.


    No it hasn't.


    And population continues to increase. ZPG failed but it was a great idea. The problem is that a capitalist economy needs population growth.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  18. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    654
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Why isn't insurance voluntary?

    My employer offers a pension, which I will actually be able to collect when I turn 62 compared to the very real prospect that Social Security will have collapsed by the time I retire. So why am I forced to participate in a system, which if no changes are made, will be insolvent and unable to pay it's obligations within 20 years?
     
  19. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,071
    Likes Received:
    3,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because too many people would not bother with it and end up elderly and penniless and then cost even more for public assistance. That is how it was prior to the beginning of S.S. minus the public assistance programs. You really want to go back to having elderly on the street begging, suffering, and dying in the gutters?


    To what extent is it funded? Most are below 70%.


    Because if you get out of the way, there will be changes to fix it. Why are you forced? -because you seem to be one of those who wouldn't see the value of the diversification and if your pension crashes and you have no S.S. you'll end up penniless and begging on the street. It is necessary for the government to do what people fail to do for themselves in order to save tax dollars later.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.

Share This Page