These better off without Social Security?

[billwald]

Would these people be better off if there had never been SS and why?

http://heraldnet.com/article/201203...-retirees-as-cost-of-living-rises-study-finds

Of the nearly 20 million older Americans who live alone or with a spouse, about 47 percent can't afford everyday necessities such as proper nutrition and medical care, according to the analysis by Wider Opportunities for Women, a nonprofit research firm in Washington.

 

[glfredrick]

What you are doing is called "begging the question." You have set up a scenario whereby the only correct answer is the one you stipulate.

You have also asked a "complicated" or "complex" question, whereby you have asked, essentially, "Did your wife appreciate you when you stopped beating her?"

Social Security was originally "sold" to the American populace as a safety net to catch those who MIGHT fall through the cracks of an otherwise implimented retirement program. That was the sales pitch, but that was never what was intended from the implimentation of the program. Rather, it was merely another means by which the government could redistribute wealth and take from the working class and wealthy demographic and give - and thus buy votes -- among the poor. It is but another example of Marxism lived large and we have bought into it, hook, line, and sinker.

Now, we stand having to make CRITICAL decisions as to whether we can continue to pay for the largest entitlement program in the history of the world, with votes by and large coming from the sectors of YES we MUST continue so I can live and NO we must cease so I can live. In other words, the SS program as invented and envisioned by the liberal Marxist socialists who promulgated and implimented it has worked PERFECTLY.

 

[billwald]

SS was created because most people didn't - whatever the reason - save for their old age. These are people who grew up under SS and didn't - whatever the reason - save for their old age. I think it is safe to say that SS is most if now all their income.

If there had been no SS would these people have saved at least enough to equal their present SS income?

They may be sick or hungry but were not dead when the data was collected. Would we and they be better off if they were dead?

 

[Robert Snow]

SOCIAL security has been a life saver for millions of people throughout the years.

 

[glfredrick]

It is a different argument that SOME people are better off because of SS.

But neither of you understand the real reason it exists. That is scary. It means that you, otherwise cynical people, TRUST the government story on this particular issue. Weird, huh?

From the New American:

Today's promise of "soft" socialism, although free from the shackles of a planned economy and the brutal tyranny of Soviet-era Russia, nevertheless imitates some of the flaws of classic socialism, and promises as much. The belief that the government can solve basic economic and societal problems has given rise to programs like socialized medicine, Social Security, reparations, and welfare — all promising to free us from the vicissitudes of life in exchange for our freedom. But they are doomed to failure because like all socialist programs, they ignore the fundamental principles of human behavior, including certain natural inequalities.

One needs to look no further than President Lyndon Johnson's attempt to create the Great Society through a series of socialist reforms during the 1960s for an example of the failed promises of socialism in the United States. Johnson shared much with perhaps the greatest U.S. progressive social reformer, Franklin D. Roosevelt, for each saw the government as the tool to build a vast commonwealth based on their own economic and redistributive objectives.

Johnson ushered in an array of socialist programs designed to reduce poverty, increase access to medical services, and improve education, among other things. Federal aid was augmented by an aggressive system of grant-in-aid to states in order to meet goals. Grant-in-aid outlays nearly doubled between 1964 and 1968. In fact, more grant programs (210) were launched during Johnson's administration than all of the years dating back to the first grant enactment in 1879. As the numbers increased so did the range of programs. New programs like Medicaid, and urban renewal programs like Model Cities, expanded the liberal socialist agenda beyond the boundaries of the traditional agenda. In the end some programs like Model Cities were unmitigated failures, and the cost of the programs and their questionable levels of success overwhelmed Americans.

And, here we stand today -- a nation on the verge of bancrupcy...

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

It should be optional to pay into, simple as that.

 

[TCassidy]

My SS cost me 15% of my income for 47 years (7.5% of my contribution plus the 7.5% that would have been paid by my employer had I not been self-employed). In return I get around $1200 per month. My 401k cost me around 10% of my income from which I now collect around $2000 per month after withdrawing enough to buy a retirement home free and clear.

Would people have been better off being able to invest in private retirement programs in place of the government run program? Absolutely. Not to mention the SS system is on the brink of insolvency and has become a giant Ponzi scheme taking from later investors to pay current SS recipients which means, with the decline in the birth rate, that current investors under age 45 will be left with nothing.

And those who refused to invest in their own futures? Let's go back to the "poor house" system. If a person reaches retirement age and has not invested, that person can move into a poor house type barracks where they will receive the necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, and basic medical care from on-site doctors. All that at about 1/10 the cost of the current SS system.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

My SS cost me 15% of my income for 47 years (7.5% of my contribution plus the 7.5% that would have been paid by my employer had I not been self-employed). In return I get around $1200 per month. My 401k cost me around 10% of my income from which I now collect around $2000 per month after withdrawing enough to buy a retirement home free and clear.

Would people have been better off being able to invest in private retirement programs in place of the government run program? Absolutely. Not to mention the SS system is on the brink of insolvency and has become a giant Ponzi scheme taking from later investors to pay current SS recipients which means, with the decline in the birth rate, that current investors under age 45 will be left with nothing.

And those who refused to invest in their own futures? Let's go back to the "poor house" system. If a person reaches retirement age and has not invested, that person can move into a poor house type barracks where they will receive the necessities of life, food, shelter, clothing, and basic medical care from on-site doctors. All that at about 1/10 the cost of the current SS system.

Bingo.

It's a forced savings system that will be bled thin for future generations, if there at all.

I'm 30 years old and I'm planning for retirement. I also realize that one of two things will happen for SS for me

1. It won't be there
2. The % I get and the age I can get it will be changed drastically from what it currently is.

The problem? The amount I have to put in won't change.

I'm responsible for myself, my family, and in a bit broader terms my church family. I am not responsible for the retirement and living situation of every other American. I'll do what I can whenever I can to help, but to tell my generation that it's "for me" is a very terrible joke.

 

[carpro]

SOCIAL security has been a life saver for millions of people throughout the years.

And a life destroyer for millions of them at the same time. The only real beneficiary of SS funds has been the government.

They've spent it all.

 

[Oldtimer]

Better half and I are on social security now. For 40+ years deductions were automatically taken from our checks to go into our "retirement accounts". Our monthly checks, minus deductions for medical coverage (also deducted from our paychecks, too) and our tithe on the gross doesn't meet our monthly bills. Fortunately, we also contributed to profit sharing plans throughout our working lives. IF the SS & Medicare payments had been invested the same way, we'd be living "comfortably" today, instead of our frugal lifestyle.

Our IRA's may or may not cover the gap in our living expenses, depending on how long each of us lives. Due to health issues that will get progressively worse, our ability to work to support ourselves is disappearing.

Comments, FWIW:

(1) IF the SS Trust Fund had been a locked box with a decent and fairly safe ROI, we wouldn't have had the worries, today, that we have about our future.

(2a) The SS System changed the way society, in general, views working. For many folks, rather than working until nature takes its toll, the plan is to work x number of years and then quit. Or, to work until their personal savings and/or investments will allow them to quit. It seems that fewer and fewer people have the desire to work a day longer than is necessary. I don't remember how long it's been since someone said they wanted to work for as long as their health would permit.

(2b) The age of 65 became an arbitrary time for people to quit work or be forced out of work due to their age as the primary criteria. The "value" of older experienced personnel declined as the "Senior Citizen" mentality grew. Age discrimination reared its head and laws were passed against it. In theory that is, since right-to-work states could legally used almost any "excuse". I can't comment on non right-to-work states, as I've never lived in one.

(2c) The SS System helped to destroy the concept of the family. When I was a youngster, it was common around here to have 3 generations in the family home. As grandparents declined as bread winners, they could still assist their children, when their children took on the financial responsibility. Daycare and pre-K schools have taken grandparents baby sitting/teaching responsbilities. Fast food has taken the place of home cooked meals. Plus, the toss and buy another because no one has time to sew on a button or re-wire a lamp.

(3) As mentioned earlier, SS instilled more of the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" politics. I won't mess with YOUR SS if you vote for me! Don't let the other guy mess with it if you don't want to starve to death. Paved the way for even more "social" programs to buy votes and enslave voters.

Sadly, far too many "seniors" haven't thought through all of this. Far too many have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that this system needs to be phased out over time. Those my age are already locked into this mess. Unfortunately, not enough 25 year olds don't spend enough time thinking about their retirement, either. And, I'm afraid, that a greater and greater number don't want to assume the responsibility for their own lives.

Well, I've rambled on long enough on this issue. I have a real fear for what's going to happen to my great nieces and nephews, if the Lord allows this world to stand until they're of retirement age, too.

 

[billwald]

shoulda woulda coulda

Wasn't there a fuss a while back about a subscription fire company refusing to put out a fire on a property whose owner refused to pay? The guy could have installed a fire suppression system but he did not.

How about a voluntary aid car system? If you don't subscribe the aid car lets you lie in the street and die.

And a voluntary SS system? Pass it up or the market crashes and you eat out of garbage cans.

And You Republicans forget disability and survivor's benefits which are, I think, about a third of SS payouts. You are happily making your deferred comp payments and an uninsured driver hits you as you are crossing the street and end up unable to work.

SS was instituted because of all those things you Right wingers said you would do to take care of yourselves but didn't because the stuff hit the fan.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Comments, FWIW:

(1) IF the SS Trust Fund had been a locked box with a decent and fairly safe ROI, we wouldn't have had the worries, today, that we have about our future.

Agreed. It was mismanaged from the beginning

(2a) The SS System changed the way society, in general, views working. For many folks, rather than working until nature takes its toll, the plan is to work x number of years and then quit. Or, to work until their personal savings and/or investments will allow them to quit. It seems that fewer and fewer people have the desire to work a day longer than is necessary. I don't remember how long it's been since someone said they wanted to work for as long as their health would permit.

I will say this: If a person properly plans for retirement, in as much that they have the funds and means to quit working at whatever age, then I have zero problem with it. If I've managed to invest and save properly that at the age of 40 I can quit work, then by all means I should. I'm not saying I disagree with your premise of how that idea began, but I certainly don't have an issue with that if those people plan accordingly and don't become a burden on society.

(2b) The age of 65 became an arbitrary time for people to quit work or be forced out of work due to their age as the primary criteria. The "value" of older experienced personnel declined as the "Senior Citizen" mentality grew. Age discrimination reared its head and laws were passed against it. In theory that is, since right-to-work states could legally used almost any "excuse". I can't comment on non right-to-work states, as I've never lived in one.

Pretty much dead on here.

(2c) The SS System helped to destroy the concept of the family. When I was a youngster, it was common around here to have 3 generations in the family home. As grandparents declined as bread winners, they could still assist their children, when their children took on the financial responsibility. Daycare and pre-K schools have taken grandparents baby sitting/teaching responsbilities. Fast food has taken the place of home cooked meals. Plus, the toss and buy another because no one has time to sew on a button or re-wire a lamp.

I'd be real interested to actually see some studies on this. I hadn't really thought of it this way. I was fortunate growing up, at the very least, that my grandparents were less than a block away. Of course, my mom didn't work either, so daycare wasn't necessary. I'm fortunate enough with my wife's job that we only need daycare 2 days a week.

(3) As mentioned earlier, SS instilled more of the "don't bite the hand that feeds you" politics. I won't mess with YOUR SS if you vote for me! Don't let the other guy mess with it if you don't want to starve to death. Paved the way for even more "social" programs to buy votes and enslave voters.

Sadly, far too many "seniors" haven't thought through all of this. Far too many have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that this system needs to be phased out over time. Those my age are already locked into this mess. Unfortunately, not enough 25 year olds don't spend enough time thinking about their retirement, either. And, I'm afraid, that a greater and greater number don't want to assume the responsibility for their own lives.
Well, I've rambled on long enough on this issue. I have a real fear for what's going to happen to my great nieces and nephews, if the Lord allows this world to stand until they're of retirement age, too.

SS has brought on a sense of entitlement, and honestly, rightfully so based on the system. You pay into it, you're entitled to it. Problem is, the magical # that they try to portray doesn't even come close (and I know that you understand).

I should have complete control to say "nope, I don't want to pay into SS" and in return know that I won't ever get it. That's a decision I should be able to make. No offense, but my money shouldn't be going to help someone else who is already collecting SS. I should be able to use my income to plan for my family and their future.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Wasn't there a fuss a while back about a subscription fire company refusing to put out a fire on a property whose owner refused to pay? The guy could have installed a fire suppression system but he did not.

How about a voluntary aid car system? If you don't subscribe the aid car lets you lie in the street and die.

And a voluntary SS system? Pass it up or the market crashes and you eat out of garbage cans.

And You Republicans forget disability and survivor's benefits which are, I think, about a third of SS payouts. You are happily making your deferred comp payments and an uninsured driver hits you as you are crossing the street and end up unable to work.

SS was instituted because of all those things you Right wingers said you would do to take care of yourselves but didn't because the stuff hit the fan.

I'm only entitled to the things I plan for and the things God promises me. I'm not sure if that's the direction you are going here.

But each person has some kind of opportunity to plan for their future. I don't think the government should make that assumption for any of us.

People can buy a disibility policy. People can pay for uninsured motorist coverage on their insurance. People can take out a life insurance policy.

All of these opportunities are out there. They should not be forced on anyone.

 

[Oldtimer]

I should have complete control to say "nope, I don't want to pay into SS" and in return know that I won't ever get it. That's a decision I should be able to make. No offense, but my money shouldn't be going to help someone else who is already collecting SS. I should be able to use my income to plan for my family and their future.

No offense taken, as I agree with you. See item #1 in my last post for those of us who were forced into it for 40-50 years or so. I've argued against SS & Medicare for most of my working life. Especially when the "lock box" was raided. Especially, when in good times the ROI for private investment was so high. Especially, when in bad times investment could have been moved to safer harbors for the duration of the storm.

BTW, I also agree with you that anyone should be able to leave the workforce when they can personally sustain themselves during their retirement. I'm referring to the difference in attitude towards working, when I was young and what it is today. Granted, it may be some faulty memory. I just don't remember my elders spending much time talking about retiring at 62. And getting Medicare at 65. Now it's a frequent topic of conversation for those about 55+ and up to 65 (higher for those will full benefits only after 65).

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

No offense taken, as I agree with you. See item #1 in my last post for those of us who were forced into it for 40-50 years or so. I've argued against SS & Medicare for most of my working life. Especially when the "lock box" was raided. Especially, when in good times the ROI for private investment was so high. Especially, when in bad times investment could have been moved to safer harbors for the duration of the storm.

BTW, I also agree with you that anyone should be able to leave the workforce when they can personally sustain themselves during their retirement. I'm referring to the difference in attitude towards working, when I was young and what it is today. Granted, it may be some faulty memory. I just don't remember my elders spending much time talking about retiring at 62. And getting Medicare at 65. Now it's a frequent topic of conversation for those about 55+ and up to 65 (higher for those will full benefits only after 65).

Gotcha. My dad passed at 49, but I never remember him talking about retirement (2002). I'm planning for it now, but I don't have an age in mind. It all just depends on where I'm at in 10-15-20 years. I don't know if I ever want to retire, but in the line of work I'm in, I could essentially "work" until I'm 80, but not be putting in 40 hours a week.


I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, because I hope the Lord comes before I retire. But I'll plan for it nonetheless.

 

[billwald]

>>(1) IF the SS Trust Fund had been a locked box with a decent and fairly safe

>ROI, we wouldn't have had the worries, today, that we have about our future.
Agreed. It was mismanaged from the beginning

I'm getting tired f hearing this. For years I have been trying to get one of you outlaws to explain exactly what should be done with SS founds. Please describe the contents of your lock box.

"Outlaws" because the SS Administration does exactly what the SS legislation requires. You wish for the law to be violated.

 

[billwald]

>I don't know if I ever want to retire, but in the line of work I'm in, I could essentially "work" until I'm 80, but not be putting in 40 hours a week.

Some people are killed by their retiring. Others, no point to being the richest man in the graveyard.

 

[TCassidy]

Bill, everybody with an IQ greater than his hat size knows there is an annual multibillion dollar shortfall that is made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2022 because of the interest generated by its bonds. After 2022, the Fund will decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2036.

 

[carpro]

Bill, everybody with an IQ greater than his hat size knows there is an annual multibillion dollar shortfall that is made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2022 because of the interest generated by its bonds. After 2022, the Fund will decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2036.

The "trust fund" doesn't exist. It was all spent and replaced by government IOUs. There is not a single dollar in the trust fund except what comes in, then goes out each month. Somewhere toward the end of the year, the treasury will have to borrow money(probably from China) to redeem the IOUs and continue to pay benefits, increasing the national debt even more. Just like last year. For the foreseable future, they will have to do the same every year.

It's a shell game. They spend the SS money and then borrow to pay it back. Neat way to keep at least some of their spending off budget and under the radar.

 

[glfredrick]

The "trust fund" doesn't exist. It was all spent and replaced by government IOUs. There is not a single dollar in the trust fund except what comes in, then goes out each month. Somewhere toward the end of the year, the treasury will have to borrow money(probably from China) to redeem the IOUs and continue to pay benefits, increasing the national debt even more. Just like last year. For the foreseable future, they will have to do the same every year.

It's a shell game. They spend the SS money and then borrow to pay it back. Neat way to keep at least some of their spending off budget and under the radar.

Precisely... NEVER WAS a trust fund. Pure Ponzi scheme from day one. Nothing more than the socialistic means to redistribute wealth under the cover (AS ALWAYS!) of "helping people."

Now, they get back half or less of what they paid into the system instead of all their money plus interest, PLUS they get taxed on the benefits AGAIN.

Shell game indeed!

Note that I am DEFINITELY NOT AGAINST helping people in need. I've been one of those people and likely will be again. Nature of the game when one surrenders the chase for worldly wealth to be a minister of the gospel. But, there are FAR better ways of accomplishing that than ROBBING my neighbor of their own fairly-earned paychecks so that I or someone else can sit on their "blessed assurance" and do little to help myself.