Larofeticus: Stile4aly: As a society we have decided to purchase this service. You have had a vote in this matter in every election since you were 18.

The social contract is a fairy tale. A myth used to delude people like you into supporting the use of force. This context isn't even the use of force against "bad people" like criminals, unless you believe it is bad that some people choose to not be wasteful and end up with more.

Taxation isn't theft, Mr. Galt. I prefer to give some from my earnings to ensure that roads are built, the elderly are insured, and the poor are clothed and fed. Enough people agree with me that these laws are in place.

If my "having a vote in the matter" has no possibility of consequence whatsoever, then what value is it? Considering there are an infinite number of possible policy variations, being presented with exactly one choice between two options seems like very poor coverage of the possible space.

Present your policy position. Run on it if you like. If your position is so convincing then let it compete in the marketplace of ideas. Just because your position doesn't win doesn't mean that you've been oppressed.

dumbobruni: Wendy's Chili: dumbobruni: I don't like social security at all. Since I don't have a say in how the money is invested ... allow for an option of how "my" funds are invested.

IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT

insurance is an investment

Insurance is not an investment for the purpose of profit. It's an investment as a hedge against failure mode, be it an illness, a disabling accident, death, a fire at home, or simply age. No one invests in an insurance plan to turn a profit.

Saying "I don't want to be taxed for Social Security" is saying "I want my parents, grandparents, and elderly people in my community to be unable to afford food, shelter and decent human dignity."

Before Social Security existed, half of all elderly people lived in poverty. Now we have a system where people who are healthy and able to work pay for people who are old and can't work anymore. It doesn't pay for them to be rich, but it's enough to get by. If you want you can supplement your income by being a Walmart greeter or with savings, but even if you're flat on your back and unable to make money, you will get something which will let you get by.

That's the system. It isn't a retirement plan. There isn't an account somewhere with your name on it that gets interest. It's a transfer from healthy working people to old and disabled people.

Stile4aly: dumbobruni: Wendy's Chili: dumbobruni: I don't like social security at all. Since I don't have a say in how the money is invested ... allow for an option of how "my" funds are invested.

IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT

insurance is an investment

Insurance is not an investment for the purpose of profit. It's an investment as a hedge against failure mode, be it an illness, a disabling accident, death, a fire at home, or simply age. No one invests in an insurance plan to turn a profit.

you have never heard of participating life insurance policies then....they payout special dividends to policyholders when returns come in above expectations.

Stile4aly: In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty.

Fine, let's play math and statistics.

"Even ... 78% would probably be a slightly conservative estimate since poverty for all persons in 1939 was considerably lower in 1939 than in 1935," Smolensky wrote us in an e-mail. He said that by his estimates, in 1935, the poverty rate for all families was 69.4 percent. For the elderly, it could have been up to 20 percent higher. "

So the overall poverty rate of everyone is 69.4% during the great depression. Furthermore, according to the 1940 census, there were around 9 million elderly people at the time, about 10% of the population. So we're looking at napkin math of around 6.5 million impoverished elderly compared to 52 million impoverished non-elderly. Suddenly an elderly poverty rate of 75% doesn't seem so amazing. Trying to give the elderly special license during an era where everyone is experiencing hardship doesn't fly.

And the mention of the term "dependent poverty." That they need charity in order to survive. There is a significant difference between receiving charity and dying in the street. Even during the great depression, people were not dying in the street.

People also lived differently during that era. They had gardens, and bartered, went to stay with relatives who lived on a farm, or migrated to California. Any of these activities would permit survival while still qualifying as "impoverished."

Larofeticus: So the overall poverty rate of everyone is 69.4% during the great depression. Furthermore, according to the 1940 census, there were around 9 million elderly people at the time, about 10% of the population. So we're looking at napkin math of around 6.5 million impoverished elderly compared to 52 million impoverished non-elderly. Suddenly an elderly poverty rate of 75% doesn't seem so amazing. Trying to give the elderly special license during an era where everyone is experiencing hardship doesn't fly.

And the mention of the term "dependent poverty." That they need charity in order to survive. There is a significant difference between receiving charity and dying in the street. Even during the great depression, people were not dying in the street.

People also lived differently during that era. They had gardens, and bartered, went to stay with relatives who lived on a farm, or migrated to California. Any of these activities would permit survival while still qualifying as "impoverished." Because not all poor seniors died in the street, I refuse to pay for Social Security.

FTFY

Smeggy Smurf: If given the option to opt out forever without any possibility of going back, I'd do it in without hesitation.

SS is a ponzi scheme piece of shiat that will never benefit your or I, that is for certain.

grinding_journalist: Stile4aly: No one invests in an insurance plan to turn a profit.

lolwut?

You've really never heard of companies and private individuals taking out insurance policies on employees/strangers to profit off of their deaths?

The intent of that sort of policy is for a company to be able to hedge against the death of a critical employee. If CEO John Smith provides a certain amount of value to the company by virtue of his business acumen then it makes sense to insure against the possibility of him being hit by a car. The fact that these policies are used for low level employees is despicable.

I'd also argue that any GOOD insurance plan GUARANTEES you a "profit", even if that profit isn't cash. The idea is to get more out of it than you paid into it. That's called...wait for it...a PROFIT.

In the event that the failure mode (death, illness, disability, etc) occurs then you may very well get more out than you put in, but that is compensation for loss, not profit.

dumbobruni: you have never heard of participating life insurance policies then....they payout special dividends to policyholders when returns come in above expectations.

Some participating policies pay you a dividend if the company's operating profits exceed expectations. These dividends are essentially a premium rebate, not a profit vehicle. You'll never get a greater rebate than your costs.

Larofeticus: Stile4aly: In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty.

Fine, let's play math and statistics.

"Even ... 78% would probably be a slightly conservative estimate since poverty for all persons in 1939 was considerably lower in 1939 than in 1935," Smolensky wrote us in an e-mail. He said that by his estimates, in 1935, the poverty rate for all families was 69.4 percent. For the elderly, it could have been up to 20 percent higher. "

So the overall poverty rate of everyone is 69.4% during the great depression. Furthermore, according to the 1940 census, there were around 9 million elderly people at the time, about 10% of the population. So we're looking at napkin math of around 6.5 million impoverished elderly compared to 52 million impoverished non-elderly. Suddenly an elderly poverty rate of 75% doesn't seem so amazing. Trying to give the elderly special license during an era where everyone is experiencing hardship doesn't fly.

The difference is that the impoverished working age person had the ability to work and get out of poverty as the economy improved. An elderly person probably didn't have that ability.

And the mention of the term "dependent poverty." That they need charity in order to survive. There is a significant difference between receiving charity and dying in the street. Even during the great depression, people were not dying in the street.

Charity is not infinite. Voluntary charity can never meet the need that social security meets. The streets may not have been littered with bodies, but the elderly were undeniably dying in poverty.

People also lived differently during that era. They had gardens, and bartered, went to stay with relatives who lived on a farm, or migrated to California. Any of these activities would permit survival while still qualifying as "impoverished."

Right, because we all want to spend our twilight years begging for charity, bartering with the local grocer, and tilling the soil.

Damn. Fark stripped all my /i tags.

Stile4aly: grinding_journalist: Stile4aly: No one invests in an insurance plan to turn a profit.

lolwut?

You've really never heard of companies and private individuals taking out insurance policies on employees/strangers to profit off of their deaths?

The intent of that sort of policy is for a company to be able to hedge against the death of a critical employee. If CEO John Smith provides a certain amount of value to the company by virtue of his business acumen then it makes sense to insure against the possibility of him being hit by a car. The fact that these policies are used for low level employees is despicable.

I'd also argue that any GOOD insurance plan GUARANTEES you a "profit", even if that profit isn't cash. The idea is to get more out of it than you paid into it. That's called...wait for it...a PROFIT.

In the event that the failure mode (death, illness, disability, etc) occurs then you may very well get more out than you put in, but that is compensation for loss, not profit.

dumbobruni: you have never heard of participating life insurance policies then....they payout special dividends to policyholders when returns come in above expectations.

Some participating policies pay you a dividend if the company's operating profits exceed expectations. These dividends are essentially a premium rebate, not a profit vehicle. You'll never get a greater rebate than your costs.

Larofeticus: Stile4aly: In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty.

Fine, let's play math and statistics.

"Even ... 78% would probably be a slightly conservative estimate since poverty for all persons in 1939 was considerably lower in 1939 than in 1935," Smolensky wrote us in an e-mail. He said that by his estimates, in 1935, the poverty rate for all families was 69.4 percent. For the elderly, it could have been up to 20 percent higher. "

So the overall poverty rate of everyone is 69.4% during the great depression. Furthermore, according to the 1940 census, there were around 9 million elderly people at the time, about 10% of the population. So we're looking at napkin math of around 6.5 million impoverished elderly compared to 52 million impoverished non-elderly. Suddenly an elderly poverty rate of 75% doesn't seem so amazing. Trying to give the elderly special license during an era where everyone is experiencing hardship doesn't fly.

The difference is that the impoverished working age person had the ability to work and get out of poverty as the economy improved. An elderly person probably didn't have that ability.

And the mention of the term "dependent poverty." That they need charity in order to survive. There is a significant difference between receiving charity and dying in the street. Even during the great depression, people were not dying in the street.

Charity is not infinite. Voluntary charity can never meet the need that social security meets. The streets may not have been littered with bodies, but the elderly were undeniably dying in poverty.

People also lived differently during that era. They had gardens, and bartered, went to stay with relatives who lived on a farm, or migrated to California. Any of these activities would permit survival while still qualifying as "impoverished."

Right, because we all want to spend our twilight years begging for charity, bartering with the local grocer, and tilling the soil.

Stile4aly: Right, because we all want to spend our twilight years begging for charity, bartering with the local grocer, and tilling the soil.

Never mind that the concept of retirement is completely unprecedented in human history except for the last half century. Reality doesn't care what you want. Though, if what you want is to live the last portion of your life idle, then counting on social security to do so is not going to reach that goal.

Larofeticus: Stile4aly: Right, because we all want to spend our twilight years begging for charity, bartering with the local grocer, and tilling the soil.

Never mind that the concept of retirement is completely unprecedented in human history except for the last half century. Reality doesn't care what you want. Though, if what you want is to live the last portion of your life idle, then counting on social security to do so is not going to reach that goal.

I'm not counting on Social Security alone. I have an IRA and a pension. But if something goes wrong and my investments take a big hit then it's reassuring to know I'll have some guaranteed income so that I can pay for my basic needs.

HotDogDay82: Retirement age (67):
$503 a month

Hilarious. I made more selling candy at a movie theater as a 14 year old

Is that adjusted for inflation?

The last statement I got had an amount if I was 67 today, and an inflation adjusted amount.

Larofeticus: And the mention of the term "dependent poverty." That they need charity in order to survive. There is a significant difference between receiving charity and dying in the street. Even during the great depression, people were not dying in the street.

Hi! My parents lived through the Depression and guess what? I can assure you that people were dying in the street in Little Rock, AR and Bakersfield, CA. Most of them were the elderly.

So tell me, o' Libertarian genius: if we ended SSI, how many elderly are you willing to see tossed in abject poverty? How much misery will suit your ideological aims?

Those things aren't independent. The next time the financial markets bite it then the bond market is going to crater too and all three of those are going down to their intrinsic value. Unless you've got some international exposure in there, all your eggs are just in different compartments of the same basket.

Pincy: Smeggy Smurf: If given the option to opt out forever without any possibility of going back, I'd do it in without hesitation.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. It's insurance against having starving old people in the street begging for money. It's the price/tax we all pay for living in a civilized society.

I don't care about them. I care about providing for my own family first. The families of the starving granny can provide for their own. Or not. Whether or not your grandma dies of starvation is of no concern of mine until I am asked personally for aid.

grinding_journalist: I'd also argue that any GOOD insurance plan GUARANTEES you a "profit", even if that profit isn't cash. The idea is to get more out of it than you paid into it.

Any insurance company that GUARANTEES you a "profit" isn't going to be in business very long.

CitizenTed: Hi! My parents lived through the Depression and guess what? I can assure you that people were dying in the street in Little Rock, AR and Bakersfield, CA. Most of them were the elderly.

Sounds like your parents weren't charitable enough.

Maybe FDR shouldn't have destroyed agricultural goods in order to prop up prices.

I'd be willing to compromise by endorsing a Social Security system which only pays out benefits during natural disasters, plagues, depressions or famines. Not wars though; old people vote for wars, wars aren't the same as they used to be, and they don't end anymore.

Stile4aly: As a society we have decided to purchase this service. You have had a vote in this matter in every election since you were 18. Just because the vote doesn't go your way doesn't mean that you've been disenfranchised.

Really? I don't recall seeing social security on the ballot. Less hyperbole, please. Young people have no say in SSI because they will be outvoted, every single time, by the older recipients of the system. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner and all that.

So in this case, "disenfranchised" is the proper term to use.

Lost Thought 00: grinding_journalist: Wendy's Chili: SS isn't an investment. It's insurance against getting old or sick.

Then it needs to stop being treated like a retirement plan, and people need to be allowed to opt out of it, god forbid they know how to invest their money better than the government.

And if they suffer a catastrophy or just make terrible decisions, how does society handle them when they can no longer earn a living?

I would say dogfood factory but we cannot even put horse in dogfood let alone an even more anthropomorphizable foodstuff.

Smeggy Smurf: Pincy: Smeggy Smurf: If given the option to opt out forever without any possibility of going back, I'd do it in without hesitation.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. It's insurance against having starving old people in the street begging for money. It's the price/tax we all pay for living in a civilized society.

I don't care about them. I care about providing for my own family first. The families of the starving granny can provide for their own. Or not. Whether or not your grandma dies of starvation is of no concern of mine until I am asked personally for aid.

Sociopathy is the psychological underpinning of libertarianism.

I entered mine, and at age 67 it just came back as "Soylent Green."

No idea what this might mean.

Stile4aly: Smeggy Smurf: Pincy: Smeggy Smurf: If given the option to opt out forever without any possibility of going back, I'd do it in without hesitation.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. It's insurance against having starving old people in the street begging for money. It's the price/tax we all pay for living in a civilized society.

I don't care about them. I care about providing for my own family first. The families of the starving granny can provide for their own. Or not. Whether or not your grandma dies of starvation is of no concern of mine until I am asked personally for aid.

Sociopathy is the psychological underpinning of libertarianism.

I thought it was autism?

WTF:

At full retirement age (67): You owe $354 a month

I hate our government, and their mismanagement they'll cut benefits, yet maintain that tax for sure.

/I'm 34, with a small almost paid off 150k house, close to 250k in 401k (playing with the formula every few months has help!), and have no desire to ever have kids (So that what, triples my savings?)

My wife wants to start putting money aside to purchase a retirement ranch. I dont like the idea b/c I'll hate having to be the one with the upkeep.

Social Security pisses me off because it means that people who spent their youth partying, drinking, buying fast cars and awesome houses without saving a dime get to have a pleasant retirement too. If that's the case then why the hell am I am saving for my future? It seems like the smart course of action is to be as irresponsible as possible and then rely on the government to keep you going. In the fable of the ant and the grasshopper the damn grasshopper freezes to death in the winter. We've ignored that tale in favor of taking food from the hard working ants so that the grasshopper can fiddle all summer and then keep on fiddling all winter. The ants meanwhile break their backs working, and in the end all they get is what the grasshopper had all along.

kumquat: Social Security pisses me off because it means that people who spent their youth partying, drinking, buying fast cars and awesome houses without saving a dime get to have a pleasant retirement too. If that's the case then why the hell am I am saving for my future? It seems like the smart course of action is to be as irresponsible as possible and then rely on the government to keep you going. In the fable of the ant and the grasshopper the damn grasshopper freezes to death in the winter. We've ignored that tale in favor of taking food from the hard working ants so that the grasshopper can fiddle all summer and then keep on fiddling all winter. The ants meanwhile break their backs working, and in the end all they get is what the grasshopper had all along.

Exactly. What good is making wise decisions and saving if you can't watch other people suffer. It's no fun.

Smeggy Smurf: Pincy: Smeggy Smurf: If given the option to opt out forever without any possibility of going back, I'd do it in without hesitation.

Social Security was never intended to be a retirement plan. It's insurance against having starving old people in the street begging for money. It's the price/tax we all pay for living in a civilized society.

I don't care about them. I care about providing for my own family first. The families of the starving granny can provide for their own. Or not. Whether or not your grandma dies of starvation is of no concern of mine until I am asked personally for aid.

Wow, you're a real Humanitarian, aren't you?

It's people like you that make this country just the slightest bit more sucky to live in.

kumquat: It seems like the smart course of action is to be as irresponsible as possible and then rely on the government to keep you going.

You don't really understand how SS works, do you?

kumquat: Social Security pisses me off because it means that people who spent their youth partying, drinking, buying fast cars and awesome houses without saving a dime get to have a pleasant retirement too.

If they were partying, drinking, buying fast cards, and awesome houses, guess what, they were contributing to SSI with the job they worked to get those things.

TsukasaK: kumquat: Social Security pisses me off because it means that people who spent their youth partying, drinking, buying fast cars and awesome houses without saving a dime get to have a pleasant retirement too.

If they were partying, drinking, buying fast cards, and awesome houses, guess what, they were contributing to SSI with the job they worked to get those things.

unless they were selling weed. Which begs to ask: why haven't we legalized pot yet?

Think of all the tax revenue politicians can say will "go towards education".

I bet a lot of unscrupulous people are trying to get their Mitts on that database

gingerjet: chewielouie: I'll continue to see it as it really is: a legalized government run Ponzi scheme.

Ponzi schemes don't run for 77 years.

/social security is trivial to keep going identifiably - medicare on the other hand ....

Most ponzi schemes don't have the force of government behind it to force new members in.

kumquat: Social Security pisses me off because it means that people who spent their youth partying, drinking, buying fast cars and awesome houses without saving a dime get to have a pleasant retirement too. If that's the case then why the hell am I am saving for my future? It seems like the smart course of action is to be as irresponsible as possible and then rely on the government to keep you going. In the fable of the ant and the grasshopper the damn grasshopper freezes to death in the winter. We've ignored that tale in favor of taking food from the hard working ants so that the grasshopper can fiddle all summer and then keep on fiddling all winter. The ants meanwhile break their backs working, and in the end all they get is what the grasshopper had all along.

If it is so great do it.

Oh wait...

Stile4aly: dumbobruni: Wendy's Chili: dumbobruni: I don't like social security at all. Since I don't have a say in how the money is invested ... allow for an option of how "my" funds are invested.

IT'S NOT AN INVESTMENT

insurance is an investment

Insurance is not an investment for the purpose of profit. It's an investment as a hedge against failure mode, be it an illness, a disabling accident, death, a fire at home, or simply age. No one invests in an insurance plan to turn a profit.

A whole life policy can provide both your hedge against current risk and act as a savings vehicle. An Indexed policy, with an interest rate tied to some stock or bond index, can help you lock in gains while minimizing losses. Basically all of your premiums become savings to be returned to you at a specified age, generally around 60-65. Meanwhile your premiums have been gaining interest.

It's generally not a great product until your income starts reaching way up there. IF you're making $250k a year and you max out your other basic investment vehicles it can provide a tertiary line.

Lost Thought 00: Larofeticus: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: So if someone choose poorly and ended up with no money when they are past a reasonable employment age, we can let them die in the streets, yes? Because that would happen with privatization.

I'd like you to point out records from a historical era during which poor people died in the streets as a general matter of course. Plagues, wars, and crop failures don't count.

Prior to Social Security, 50% of all elderly lived below the poverty line. Link

I was unaware that we are in the exact same conditions as 1935.

I'm just curious - those of you who want social security abolished so they can invest the money in an IRA - what exactly is stopping you from investing money in an IRA? Social security doesn't make IRA's illegal. If you're thrifty, you can have both.

I have more than one private retirement account in addition to social security, and I'm hardly made of money. My roommate also has two different private retirement accounts. And insofar as I've seen the future, I'm probably going to need all my options eventually. In fact, I should probably increase my contributions.

If you're making so little money that social security is preventing you from investing in a retirement fund, you're probably going to really, really need social security.

Nature's 4-sided harmonious Social Security tax is educated stupid! Anyone who foresees the inevitable death of the elderly is sheep!

Look, if you want an entitlement so the old don't live in poverty, make it that. Right now Social Security is a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich (the old, generally, are the richest). It should be means-tested.

Smeggy Smurf: I don't care about them. I care about providing for my own family first. The families of the starving granny can provide for their own. Or not. Whether or not your grandma dies of starvation is of no concern of mine until I am asked personally for aid.

So, F**k you, I got mine?

/ How typically American
// and sickening....

Subby fails.

If the U.S. government was ever going to default on its debt for whatever reason, it would default on foreign-owned debt, not the debt it owes the american people.

For some reason, lots of people consider the cancellation of SS benefits to be a given, and think that believing this somehow makes them "sharp" and "in the know" rather than simple and naive.

Christian Bale: For some reason, lots of people consider the cancellation of SS benefits to be a given,

Could it be because the SS fund, on it's current path, can not mathematically sustain the amount of people who will be going on to it?

The only way I see out of that is a boosting of SS taxes, and that can only go so far. Anti-tax sentiment is absurdly high. (yes yes, I know taxes are very low here, I'm talking about the general sentiment, not reality)

Stile4aly: In 1935, more than 50% of the elderly population lived in poverty.

Old people died in poverty. This is not an acceptable outcome for the greatest country on Earth.

Living off $20k/yr in SSI benefits is still pretty much being in poverty.

If my SS contributions are my money, then allow me to opt out. For all the rest of people who dont trust themselves, allow them to opt in. If SS is run the way the government says it is run then it should be entirely voluntary. Those who choose to participate will have their benefits waiting for them when they retire.

The rest of us would rather not have 12% of our income taken from us for 50 years at the odd chance that it trickles back to us when we're 70. Think of all the businesses that could be created, student loans paid off, cars purchased, credit cards made solvent and homes rescued if we cut people's SS checks back to them and let them keep more of what they make.

Saving for retirement if you're in the middle class is damn near impossible. It makes you rely on the government program which is just the way progressives like it.