Abolish Social Security (Bush, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, voting)

[silas777]

Originally Posted by jgussler

Keep it in place. But stop the gov from borrowing out of it all the time and not paying it back.

Yeah, that will happen! I would be interested to see how many people given the choice to opt out right now and be paid every dime you paid in , no more no less would choose to no longer be taxed on ss,

[blue62]

Originally Posted by saganista

That will depend on how long he lives. But SS benefits are a true, full-life, CPI-plus-adjusted annuity that you can't outlive, and if it should (perish the thought, but it does sometimes happen) turn out that he has only a few years left, you will draw a similar survivor's annuity for the rest of your life, no matter how long that is.

AND I paid into it for almost 20 years. Who gets mine? I draw a pittance from his since he made more money than I did.. If I out live him I believe I draw maybe 75% of what he gets .Now we also pay taxes on this social security that we are drawing, because he also gets a small retirement and works part time. So now he pays taxes on his social security income which he paid taxes on for 52 years. I call that double taxation.

[chele123]

SS was never yours. If it weren't for SS, it would not have been there to begin with. The options of KPERS and IRA's are there for you in any case. As are other tax-favored means for encouraging you to save. Meanwhile, you are (in most states) required to have some form of auto insurance before you can obtain a driver's license. Are you screaming over how that money should have gone for CD's or into an IRA instead? That would be a much better analogy to SS than the ones you are trying to make

Let me type this out for you s l o w l y. I earn x amount. From x amount deductions are made. One is for Social Security, another is for my KPERS. The deductions START as MY money, I earned it. The difference is that KPERS is MINE, the account had MY name on it. I want my Social Security deduction to do the same thing. Simple concept. Why should I continue to contribute to Social Security when I am not likely to be able to draw any of it?
Auto insurance has nothing to do with Social Security.

Like too many others, you seem to believe that you can accept all that help, but avoid paying for any of the costs of it. That's where the word 'selfish' comes in...

Selfish is reserved for those that take but don't pay in. I pay in plenty, and if sweat equity counts for anything, I pay more than my share. What is selfish about wanting to protect myself from the inability of the Social Security Administration's inability to garauntee that I will recieve the benefits I have paid for? The whole Social Security system is like one big pyramid scam, with only the first investors ever benefiting.

[justone321]

I have always loved the idea of SS. It's nice to think our government has a way to help us when we are disabled and elderly, however, it truly is the pitts to know that I'll probably never see a penny of it.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by chele123

Let me type this out for you s l o w l y. I earn x amount. From x amount deductions are made. One is for Social Security, another is for my KPERS. The deductions START as MY money, I earned it. The difference is that KPERS is MINE, the account had MY name on it. I want my Social Security deduction to do the same thing. Simple concept. Why should I continue to contribute to Social Security when I am not likely to be able to draw any of it?
Auto insurance has nothing to do with Social Security.

Selfish is reserved for those that take but don't pay in. I pay in plenty, and if sweat equity counts for anything, I pay more than my share. What is selfish about wanting to protect myself from the inability of the Social Security Administration's inability to garauntee that I will recieve the benefits I have paid for? The whole Social Security system is like one big pyramid scam, with only the first investors ever benefiting.

Well said chele, the trouble here is when you are dealing with those with a socialist mentality, the concept of anything being yours is not something that is easily comprehendible, personal and private property are selfish and take a back seat to the greater government.

[YapCity]

Originally Posted by saganista

Good for you. Do you think you will be able to repeat that performance ad infinitum? Do you think that you are about average in terms of your investment philosophy and savvy, and that most people would do just as well as you or better?


No, it isn't a different animal at all. Social Security is an insurance program covering risks and costs associated with death, disability, and retirement. As with life insurance, if you pay the premiums, you get the benefits as you become entitled to them.


Rant, rant, rant. Make a case for why that million dollar life insurance policy you've been paying premiums on all your life should pay out only 100K when you die if you happen to be well off at the time. Then come talk to me about how SS premiums and payouts should be treated in the same way.


It isn't your money, and your preference is likely built upon foundations of general disinformation.


Thanks, but it's part of my job to think about this, and even if we do absolutely nothing with SS, the real benefits being paid out of SS in 30 years will be greater than what they are today. Particularly given the myopic energy policies that we have in place today, it could indeed be that the real cost of utility bills will have increased significantly by then, but as with the EITC, that's a separate matter from SS. You wanted welfare reform, you got it. And we took all those people off the rolls at HHS and put them right back on the rolls over at IRS. So it goes...

1. Life insurance is private, and it is my choice. SS is not. Two completely different things. Where do you get this stuff? I can see why you would not want to abolish it. Based on your understanding of the different investment vehicles and insurances out there, you would not be able to provide for yourself at retirement.

2. If I payed into a million dollar policy and my spouse only rcvd 100k at my death, that's FRAUD. Again, insurance is private, SS is not.

3. It is my money. Before it is stolen from me at each paycheck, it makes up my gross income. Where do you think SS comes from, thin air?

4. Do you actually read the line that states your "estimated benefit" when you receive that rag from the SSA every few months? That is what I am speaking of.

The bottom line is, the current system is not sustainable. Therefore, my money is in effect being stolen from me. I would rather have the choice to opt out, and handle my own investments.

Yes, I am qualified to make my own investment decisions. Even the NASD gives you that much when you pass the Series 7 and 63. As for the rest of the country, that's why I think it should be a CHOICE. If you want to entrust your future to this government, then by all means, go right ahead.

Personally, I know better than that.


~T

[blue62]

If SS is so great, why don't the congress, senators and the rest of government pay into it

[happyappy]

Originally Posted by blue62

If SS is so great, why don't the congress, senators and the rest of government pay into it

They do. You missed a big discussion about it in one of the several threads claiming Hillary Clinton is a she-devil.

[Kereczr]

Originally Posted by fashionablecowboy

I am looking at my paycheck right now, and the tax rate for social security is seriously depressing. I can't believe how much money is taken out.

Is social security worth this much? I doubt that anyone has ever felt good when they saw how much money was taken from their paycheck for this.. It's a defunct sytem that will have to be abolished soon. It doesn't pay for itself. It's too costly. It's too big daddy. Defunct, ABOLISH IT.

Yah and leave the millions of elderly who currently use it to survive to live in the gutter

[saganista]

Originally Posted by YapCity

1. Life insurance is private, and it is my choice. SS is not.

The first is a meaningless distinction unless you can attach some meaning to it. Insurance is insurance. Re the second, feel free to consider if you prefer the quite mandatory auto insurance required in order to obtain a driver's license, or the equally inescapable homeowner's insurance required by virtually every mortgage lender. No payouts to well-to-do policy holders if they should suffer a covered loss?

Originally Posted by YapCity

Two completely different things. Where do you get this stuff?

You haven't begun to make that case, and I get this stuff from being reasonably familiar with the facts of the situation.

Originally Posted by YapCity

I can see why you would not want to abolish it. Based on your understanding of the different investment vehicles and insurances out there, you would not be able to provide for yourself at retirement.

Actually, my retirement security is already well assured, thank you. But I don't then turn around and try to mess over everybody else. Through no fault of their own, a lot of people (as in millions and millions) rely on SS as a significant part of the post-retirement income. Just because SS won't be much of a factor for me doesn't seem like any reason to stab any of those and future millions in the back by deliberately trying to undermine their futures.

Originally Posted by YapCity

2. If I payed into a million dollar policy and my spouse only rcvd 100k at my death, that's FRAUD. Again, insurance is private, SS is not.

The government issues insurance of various types. It doesn't become not-insurance just because it is underwritten in the public sector. And what you are now calling FRAUD is exactly what you earlier recommended -- collecting premiums in exchange for a future benefit that will never be paid.

Originally Posted by YapCity

3. It is my money. Before it is stolen from me at each paycheck, it makes up my gross income. Where do you think SS comes from, thin air?

No, your gross income comes from thin air...otherwise known as the market. Every week you prove to your employer that you are willing to show up each morning in exchange for your net pay. If SS were to be abolished, the portion of your gross pay that currently goes to payroll taxes would be abolished as well, leaving you with exactly the same net pay as before. Do you seriously think that any business facing competition and cost-cutting pressures is going to continue to just hand that 6.2% over to you when they aren't forced to by law anymore? You better refigure that math.

Originally Posted by YapCity

4. Do you actually read the line that states your "estimated benefit" when you receive that rag from the SSA every few months? That is what I am speaking of.

Your estimated benefit at retirement is based on factors such as your future work and salary history and future inflation and productivity factors. These things are not known yet. Which word do you use in such situations if not 'estimated'?

Originally Posted by YapCity

The bottom line is, the current system is not sustainable.

No such thing is true. Even if we do nothing at all, the system is fully sustainable through the middle of the century. The problems to be confronted then are minor in comparison to those that were finally confronted in 1982 (when the SSTF had but a few months left to live), and can be addressed through rather simple actions now or through rather drastic actions later. I would argue on equity terms that those who will benefit from such actions should be the ones who bear the primary share of the costs. Some of those who will draw SS in the second half of the century are not even born yet. Most have not started their working lives yet. We have some, but not a lot, of time to figure this out properly.

Originally Posted by YapCity

Therefore, my money is in effect being stolen from me. I would rather have the choice to opt out, and handle my own investments.

Nothing is being 'stolen' from you. The argument is piffle. No doubt you'd rather have all your income and sales taxes back as well. Gimme, gimme, gimme all those benefits, but don't charge me a dime for them.

Originally Posted by YapCity

Yes, I am qualified to make my own investment decisions. Even the NASD gives you that much when you pass the Series 7 and 63. As for the rest of the country, that's why I think it should be a CHOICE. If you want to entrust your future to this government, then by all means, go right ahead. Personally, I know better than that.

Fell free to invest your heart out with your cert's and cred's. Leverage some short position in porkbellies, if it suits you. Doesn't relieve you of your obligation or your social responsibility to pay taxes. I've got mine, so screw the rest of you is not exactly a laudible or particularly American approach to things.