Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jtur88 – I disagree with you on one point. The idea is to provide the top 1% with hundreds of million of dollars and have the rest of us pay the bill.
I wrote this recently and I believe it still applies to this debate.
“Social Security is NOT a government pension and was never intended to be a pension system. It was intended to be an income insurance system to keep some cash flowing in the economy when all the banks failed and took the elderly folk's pension savings with them. It was not so much to help the pensioner as it was to help the landlords, grocers and electric companies.
The system has been morphed to an expanded insurance system and been looted as a regressive tax system but it still is an insurance system not a pension. Too bad if you are twenty four and do not expect to ever receive any benefits. You can believe anything you want but your taxes are needed to pay the current expenses.
The system was not set up to be an investment based pension although some argued for that design. The fear among the conservatives was if the SS system was an investment fund it would wind up owning everything and they did not want the government in the market.”
In my personal case my wife and I never had any children to “care for us in our old age”. She has also not had a lucrative second career for our household. We would have lost almost half of our pension savings (actually invested in the stock market so it grew faster than inflation) if we had panicked and sold out a couple of years ago. I also support a Universal Health Care system to provide medical care for us and countless others that have been robbed of their company provided health insurance along with their pensions.
The loss of pensions due to company manipulations and/or bank/market failure is the reason for Social Security. Social Security is designed to keep some cash flowing through the economy after the great capitalist master minds crash the system for their personal benefit.
In any case the Social Security system can be brought to financial stability by limiting payments to anyone receiving any income over the 85th percentile and by eliminating the upper limit on taxable income. Social Security is a program for the entire society and the tax should be applied to all income from all sources and the rate adjusted to pay current expenses.
I have tolerated an economic system that is designed to take from the productive and provide for the owners for many years. It is time you selfish crybabies put up with a system that recovers some of that misdirected wealth and provides for the less lucky. I also do not care if it makes you angry to have to contribute to someone or something that is not you.
And I know people who are two years from retirement that got forced into part time to get out of paying for their benefits, the vacation time earned and effected their pensions that they payed into. Because that is how capitalism works, the bottom line. Which is why we don't want to elect people who keep thinking government should be run as a private institution. The effect that this has created where I am at is the lack of services rendered to others and an overstretched required supervision of those ordered so. Further, there is a a lack of knowledge that is not being passed down. See, there is always a diehard in there who thinks that the game is to McDonaldize everything.
There are a vast amount of people who "invested" through their retirement, not knowing a damn thing about stocks, and relying on financial advisors. They have lost everything. Nobody is supposed to use Social Security as "the retirement plan", however, that is what they have wound up with. Its like collective amnesia. People go ahead and invest through the pensions or retirement plans, often without a choice, the economy does a landslide and a bunch of people walk with money while everyobody else loses and then a couple of shmucks commit suicide while the rest of everyone else is screwed.
Then some clown comes through and says, downsizing. We will have to get rid of those who make the most salaries and have the most acquired vacation time and etc. And they do so based on several myths that have repeatedly been blown out of the water.
One myth is that it is the older generation that will be absent sick more. In fact, older workers are more punctual and take less time off sick.
Now, this is where I think it should be looked at. Why is it that we have stay at home parents that do not contribute and yet qualify? This is an outdated "lifestyle" that we are supporting here.
And I don't buy that once upon a time people took care of their elderly. Yeah, well, at some point they may require 24 hour care that you will have to stop working (stop paying taxes) in order to care for them. In fact, this became a really hot topic 20 years ago as people were losing everything in trying to care for their parents.
So, the big question is, why is it necessary to lose everything in order to care for them? Why does it cost 80K to get a pacemaker?
Yes, there are some lazy people in the world. However, that is a flimsy excuse used to detract from the capitalist BS. Reminds me of that movie line, and if you work real hard then someday you can own your own McDonalds, too.
Again, it serves a purpose.
As an aside, you do realize that there are people who are divorcing their spouses of x amount of years just in order for them to receive care. They have to qualify to get the care that they need.
I understand what you are saying completely, and I really sympathize with those people. Again - I don't see what those problems have to do with government.
People are responsible for their own financial well being. The government is not responsible for them.
hnsq - I disagree with you and the rest of the selfish individualists on this very topic. Just as we are jointly responsible for our fire, police and military defense, we are also jointly responsible for providing universal health care and supplemental retirement for all of our citizens. We are our brothers keepers.
If we do not do this we have failed to do our basic duty to our nation and to our fellow humans. People that fail to do this should be excluded form the community aln allowed to live or die on their own in the wilderness. If you do not want to take this responsibility please leave. I here they do not have any social security taxes, or any other, in the Sudan. I am certain you will get a warm welcome.
hnsq - I disagree with you and the rest of the selfish individualists on this very topic. Just as we are jointly responsible for our fire, police and military defense, we are also jointly responsible for providing universal health care and supplemental retirement for all of our citizens. We are our brothers keepers.
If we do not do this we have failed to do our basic duty to our nation and to our fellow humans. People that fail to do this should be excluded form the community aln allowed to live or die on their own in the wilderness. If you do not want to take this responsibility please leave. I here they do not have any social security taxes, or any other, in the Sudan. I am certain you will get a warm welcome.
My view isn't selfish at all. It is self-sustaining. We are responsible to provide the services that are defined in the constitution, no more and no less.
You claim I do not want to take responsibility? I take care of myself, my family and my community. I do not want to leech off of other people's money.
I know people who simply do not save for retirement because they 'shouldn't have to'. THAT is the attitude social security trains Americans to have. Just sit back in front of the TV, collect your check and let the responsible people who WANT to earn their own way generate the money. Greg - do you realize the money you talk about has to come from somewhere? Where does personal responsibility fit into the world you described?
Right now I work over 50 hours per week, work on investments on the side as well as go to grad school at night, all so I can be sure I provide for myself, my family and my community without asking for a handout from someone else.
If I can just use other people's money and rely on government social programs, why would people like me continue to work so hard? It is funny, most of the liberals I know who support social programs do NOT put in much extra effort in their jobs or communities. They expect someone else (people like me and my hard work) to pay their way through life.
My view isn't selfish at all. It is self-sustaining. We are responsible to provide the services that are defined in the constitution, no more and no less.
You claim I do not want to take responsibility? I take care of myself, my family and my community. I do not want to leech off of other people's money.
I know people who simply do not save for retirement because they 'shouldn't have to'. THAT is the attitude social security trains Americans to have. Just sit back in front of the TV, collect your check and let the responsible people who WANT to earn their own way generate the money. Greg - do you realize the money you talk about has to come from somewhere? Where does personal responsibility fit into the world you described?
Right now I work over 50 hours per week, work on investments on the side as well as go to grad school at night, all so I can be sure I provide for myself, my family and my community without asking for a handout from someone else.
If I can just use other people's money and rely on government social programs, why would people like me continue to work so hard? It is funny, most of the liberals I know who support social programs do NOT put in much extra effort in their jobs or communities. They expect someone else (people like me and my hard work) to pay their way through life.
Do you understand ANY of my frustration?
---Right now I work over 50 hours per week........
Most weeks I worked over 50 hours per week also ( starting in 1963)
Every paycheck I earned for the last 47 years had SS deducted from it.
I am now drawing SS and don't feel one bit guilty despite what posters have to say.
Do you understand that money has to come from somewhere? Yes, I think I've got that.
Do you understand that the US government owes over $110,000 for every US Citizen in national debt? And you want to add to that?
Now you are comparing SS retirement benefits (useful) to irresponsible spending by our government (harmful.)
I am saying it isn't the governments job.
You already said once that that sounded ideal to you. Make up your mind.
I am saying in this current economic climate it is nothing short of irresponsible to do anything but cut programs. Does THAT make sense?
Don't patronize someone with whom you want to have a meaningful conversation.
Please respond to the financial points I have made.
You asked how a family could take care of an infirm parent, and I am asking you how that is different from taking care of a child. In both situations the individual is caring for someone who cannot take care of themselves.
You are mentioning our current financial climate but not understanding that many families MUST have two incomes to survive. How would those families take care of elderly parents? Take them to work with them?
Let me ask you this - would you, today, buy a new TV and send the bill to your kids, thinking "well, they SHOULD be able to figure out how to pay for it". That is what the government is doing to us. How can you in good conscience allow the debt which is generated by social security to be passed to the next generation? Do you care that little about you children?
The problem is that I already purchased the TV from our government but they took the money and wasted it on one of their pet projects.
By my understanding the SS system was self-funding until US gov started appropriating funds for other purposes. That, IMHO is the real issue.
Also, the OP's question was "Is SS a failed experiment?" Nice to have a discussion about it, but SS, by itself, has not failed. What has failed is the government's ability to make wise decisions with OUR money.
I didn't say infirm parents, although, of course, some of them are. Most retires are able bodied, and live without anyone to care for them.
I believe the issue was "who is going to take care of the elderly if we don't have SS retirement benefits." That implies some of them need to be "taken care of," but not all. You are correct in saying that many retirees can take care of themselves.
Why does it now take two adults working full time to maintain a home that used to be covered by one man working full time? What was wrong with the economy a century ago, that enabled one working man to support a large family?
Maybe that question is rhetorical (?) but I am sure you are aware that in our ever-changing culture, almost nothing is going to stay exactly the same over decades or centuries. Or millenia, for that matter.
If the jobs are increasingly "technical", why does it take an increasing number of people to do them? Is the value of technology that it increases the amount of work that needs to be done? What will happen when we are so technical that every person working 24/7 still can't get all the work done?
Maybe you missed the whole debate about machines taking over people's jobs.
Perhaps your impression of more and more people needed in the workforce is actually more and more companies setting up shop and succeeding, thereby increasing the GNP.
I, too, have worked over forty years, including at my own business, and have paid my social security. I always knew it was an insurance system and figured it was a pretty good, and necessary, expense. I always realized that my personal retirement might disappear depending on when the stock market tanked. I wanted social Security as a hedge against losing my pension to market manipulation. I almost did but I rode out this latest failure quite well.
I did, and still do, object to the SS "trust funds" that were a subterfuge to use SS taxes for the general fund. This was not what these taxes were for and the concept that they were "saving" for the future was a simple lie. The damaged system can be repaired and it can start by applying to tax to all citizens, including corporations if they want to be considered individuals, on all income from all sources. This revised tax would be a "fair" straight percentage tax on everyone, as has been called for in right wing circles, but set to fund only Social Security payouts.
The other way to help fix the system would be to limit payout to anyone making over the 85 percentile of national income from all sources after they retire. Considering how small the Social security payment actually is I doubt if these folks would miss it at all.
The major problem is not SS benefits, but the cost of Medicare. Medicare costs going forward dwarf SS benefits, and there are going to have to be some serious adjustments made to the way we are doing things. When Medicare first came about medical costs for the elderly was minimal. Today with medicines ability to replace organs and joints as well as the extraordinary measures for life support, costs for elderly medical care has skyrocketed. Most of the money goes to support the last few years of life. There is going to have to be some kind of cap put on medical care if costs are ever to be brought under control. It is simply not worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in ICU units to treat people who are going to die within a year or so regardless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm tryin' real hard to understand your point.
