Hurrah for Social Security! :D

[Minor Axis]

Multiple Choice Poll
​

I figure the title will gain some attention, but I'm serious and would like to focus on a philosophical standard. When I talk to different people on the lower half of the economic scale, it is reaffirmed that the purpose of SS was and is outstanding, to force people to save for their retirement, kicking and screaming even if they don't wanna.

Is this something the government should be pushing or should it steer clear of individuals lives? There is an argument that the government should act as our big brother. Should it?

After many years of consideration, I realize that the only way the human race can move forward is by putting more emphasis on the group over the individual. For this you need government, along with the integrity to really look out for the needs of society as a whole. As long was we spend our time consumed with enriching ourselves at the expense of our neighbors we are still cave men.

The SS program was created in the 1930's by President Roosevelt. The largest single problem with this program that from the moment it was conceived and carried forward through one of the richest economic periods of the U.S., while it was subverted/continuously robbed by politicians of both parties. If it was not, I'm convinced there would be enough funds to carry it through the baby boomer retirements.

IMO, the idea is sound. It's the execution that needs to be fixed. If you are dead set against the current plan, how about a government sponsored 401K, where contributions are required, that can't be tapped until retirement? In this way the government does not assume the obligation and the individual still maintains responsibility?

I'd like to know how many people at MacRumors support the concept of SS as a security net for retirees if it was constructed in such a manner to be a viable long term program?

 

[Alien Allen]

There is no disputing that if it had been kept in Gores lock box from day one that it would be in better shape.

But that only puts off the inevitable. The math is not there to sustain in under its current form. The number of workers to retirees is upside down from when the program started.

Any type of a defined benefit program either spirals out of control or requires constant tinkering. That means any of the following needed to be done and done years ago............ lower benefits, raise taxes, raise the eligibility date.. just to name a few.

As more and more enter retirement the more clout us old farts have and the chicken shit congress less will to address what needs to be done.

I think it needs to be phased out as a defined benefit for retirement and let people contribute to a 401K type of plan. But that was thought to be unwise and you won't find many of your liberal friends likely to agree to that.

You can kick the can down the road but eventually all roads end.

 

[Alien Allen]

I assumed you voted to support it if it is economically viable.

The problem is who determines the criterion for what is viable?

I say it has reached a point where it is guaranteed to not be viable in x number of years.

Yet you will find many that say that is hogwash and it just needs tinkering.

To which I would reply that the time for tinkering has long passed

 

[Minor Axis]

I assumed you voted to support it if it is economically viable.

The problem is who determines the criterion for what is viable?

I say it has reached a point where it is guaranteed to not be viable in x number of years.

Yet you will find many that say that is hogwash and it just needs tinkering.

To which I would reply that the time for tinkering has long passed

My impression was that the program was viable until politician's robbed it continuously, while they cut taxes to historic lows and raised spending to historic highs, ultimately making the economy take a crap. If the program had been under Al Gore's lock box from the beginning what makes you think it would not be viable today? The baby boomers are going to be dead and buried in about 30 years...

Someone would need to run the numbers on this to see.

 

[Minor Axis]

Hows this sound?

When I was 17 (1970) I was concerned about SS. If I'm not going to get my money back, then SS becomes one hell of a big tax. But I look at my father who has gotten much more out of it than he put into it and I can understand the challenges now that the bulge called the baby boomers are retiring in mass. You just can't get a set amount back based on an abstract standard, it has to be a realistic amount based on contributions and interest. I still standby my premise (until someone can prove me wrong) that if the fund had Al Gore's lock box upon it from the start, the it would have been able to power through this group of retirees.

That's the issue, this government mandated savings program, politicians, a sizable portion who want the program to fail, and the other too inept to fight the stealing, and an electorate living in a dream world have allowed our savings to be stolen since its inception. Otherwise you should be able to get a return on your savings based on a formula and if you've put a lot in, you should get more back. However based on the stress in the system I can see considering a retiree's total income as method of reducing their payments by some degree. In this manner the more entitled participants would be supporting those who the program was really designed to help out. Of course it all boils down to specific details.

 

[Jackass master]

Roll back in time to 1965 and LBJ and the folks who were in charge back then. They chose to raid the cookie jar to support the war machine and pay for the Vietnam war. Once the lid was off they kept using it to pay for "great society" programs and never stopped. Today we have folks who never payed a dime into it collecting benefits and helping to drain it even more. As it was originally designed it would have been self sustaining but allowing folks who came here illegally to collect from it and reducing the collection of taxes for it have all led us to where we are at today.

 

[Alien Allen]

The math has already been done Minor

You can live in denial but the facts are that the ratios of workers to retirees has flipped from what it was.

And your father is a good example of part of the problem. It was even worse years ago. The first generation of recipients in many cases had received more than they paid in within 5 years.

As I said a lock box would have helped but the ratio having flipped would have caught up with it anyway..

 

[darkcgi]

I think the idea is great.
However I keep hearing that there is not going to be any SS when I get there.
I have been working solid since I was 14 (actually 12 but that was before I was able to work officially)
I have only been with a job a total of 6.5 months sense.
My SS is pretty decent at the moment.

 

[Dana]

I'm up in the air as of lately...

 

[Accountable]

After many years of consideration, I realize that the only way the human race can move forward is by putting more emphasis on the group over the individual.

What is your definition of "move forward" in this context?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to this site , average life expectancy was about 62 in 1935. SS was for people who lived longer than was expected, and so might need some extra assistance. Today's life expectancy is about 79. Change SS so that a person starts to receive it 3 years after average life expectancy, and you'll have a surplus again.

 

[Minor Axis]

What is your definition of "move forward" in this context?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

According to this site , average life expectancy was about 62 in 1935. SS was for people who lived longer than was expected, and so might need some extra assistance. Today's life expectancy is about 79. Change SS so that a person starts to receive it 3 years after average life expectancy, and you'll have a surplus again.

We join in society for a reason, group strength and synergism, but it's also how individuals work within the group and how they feel their individual needs are met. I can't give you a precise description, but in general terms, move away from being individuals scratching to get one up on their neighbors. That's why some of us think social programs can serve a good purpose, and why a program like social security if it is structured properly is a life line for many elderly people. If you look at tribe mentality, elders were looked after. When we lived in a cave, the old people could simply reside in their corner. For a modern world, we seem to have stepped backwards in this regard. Now it's all about me, my rights, and I don't want to pay anything for anyone else. The Republicans are masters at this type of thinking.

Although I don't see any realistic way to get there, I've always liked Star Trek's utopian socialism vision, a society structured so that individuals basic needs are automatically taken care of so they can concentrated on the group's health, prosperity, and individual improvement. As with any system, corruption can't be allowed.

How do you all picture an advanced society- what characteristics would it have?

Regarding your link, SS ultimately must be structured to be fiscally viable or it won't continue to work...

 

[Accountable]

Is it physically possible for you to step away from your rabid partisanship for even a single post? It discolors what would otherwise appear to be a thoughtful post.

How do you all picture an advanced society- what characteristics would it have?

I think the difference between you and me is that I don't need a government to tell me to help my neighbors, nor do I distrust my neighbor so much that I feel that threat of imprisonment is the only way to convince them to help their neighbors. You've made your opinion abundantly clear that left to free will, we would inevitably become an all-for-me-and-fuck-everybody-else society. What's not clear is why you're not that way. Are you somehow more blessed than the average person? I'm not, and the two of us are probably just as neighborly as anyone.

Regarding your link, SS ultimately must be structured to be fiscally viable or it won't continue to work...

You don't think that continually adjusting the age of eligibility to keep it above life expectancy (as originally designed) will keep the ratio of payers to recipients low enough to keep it viable? What structure needs to change?

 

[Alien Allen]

We join in society for a reason

Show me where I signed up to join in.

The whole point about our country is individual rights

And part of that had to do with State rights

Your utopian ideal is not what this country was founded and thrived on for over 100 years

 

[Accountable]

Show me where I signed up to join in.

The whole point about our country is individual rights

And part of that had to do with State rights

Your utopian ideal is not what this country was founded and thrived on for over 100 years

I think he sees individual rights as less evolved than groupthink. I imagine a beehive. Some scientists call them very evolved. That might be what Marx had in mind.

 

[Mercury]

I think he sees individual rights as less evolved than groupthink. I imagine a beehive. Some scientists call them very evolved. That might be what Marx had in mind.

I think that is EXACTLY what Marx had in mind ... and it would be wonderful if we could actually make that work!

...... unfortunately ... it has yet to work

 

[Accountable]

To be a mindless drone devoted to working to feed the queen (gov't) until death??

Pass.

 

[Mercury]

To be a mindless drone devoted to working to feed the queen (gov't) until death??

Pass.

..... oh I TOTALLY misread what you meant! LOL!

I was thinking more of it takes the entire hive to have a successful society.

 

[Accountable]

..... oh I TOTALLY misread what you meant! LOL!

I was thinking more of it takes the entire hive to have a successful society.

No, some people really think the hive bit is a good thing - everybody working for the common good, forsaking individuality in the interest of the whole. Personally, I'd rather preserve my individuality, helping and accepting help because it makes me feel good to do so, rather than because the law dictates that I must.

 

[Mercury]

No, some people really think the hive bit is a good thing - everybody working for the common good, forsaking individuality in the interest of the whole. Personally, I'd rather preserve my individuality, helping and accepting help because it makes me feel good to do so, rather than because the law dictates that I must.

Yes, individuality is definitely something that I believe should be treasured and it is true that sometimes when a governing body wishes to improve society by enacting legislation that they hope will help, it can actually flip-flop and be more harmful for their society.

 

[Minor Axis]

Is it physically possible for you to step away from your rabid partisanship for even a single post? It discolors what would otherwise appear to be a thoughtful post.

HUH? Point out my partisan statement in reply #11.

I think the difference between you and me is that I don't need a government to tell me to help my neighbors, nor do I distrust my neighbor so much that I feel that threat of imprisonment is the only way to convince them to help their neighbors. You've made your opinion abundantly clear that left to free will, we would inevitably become an all-for-me-and-fuck-everybody-else society. What's not clear is why you're not that way. Are you somehow more blessed than the average person? I'm not, and the two of us are probably just as neighborly as anyone.

Open your eyes and look around. This is where the big wheels in our society are at today. It's rampant, it's the perfect illustration of why government is needed. Government if it serves the people, levels the playing field keeping one sector of the economy from becoming extravagantly wealthy at the expense of another. It prevents abuses such as monopolies and dictates things like acceptable minimum wage. If our society can't function and offer a "livable" wage for a full time job, then we need to rethink how our society is structured.

You don't think that continually adjusting the age of eligibility to keep it above life expectancy (as originally designed) will keep the ratio of payers to recipients low enough to keep it viable? What structure needs to change?

You are so passionate in your views and so sure I am so wrong, you can't even see when I'm agreeing with you in principle. The program has to maintain it's fiscal viability. If that means adjusting the age of eligibility, so be it.