6 ms·

You'll be supporting all the old people through Social Security/Medicare anyway.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social Security and will need to be paid back with higher tax rates.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides.
  - chimeracoder 10y ago
    > Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides. Critics definitely consider the personal benefit. The problem is that they don't trust that it'll actually be there, or that it's a system that actually can work as it has been designed. For example, in the 80 years that it's been in effect, the OASDI tax rate has increased sixfold and then some. That increase was fairly steady for a period of time - and the reason it's stagnated recently is not because the tax revenue is sufficient (it isn't) but because political ramifications have prevented the tax rates from increasing. Obviously this isn't sustainable. You can say, "well, the solution is just to raise taxes" - but relying on periodic changes to tax rates is not a recipe for creating a system that can achieve a stable steady state without being subject to political meddling in the long-run. A further problem is that Social Security hinges upon the idea that the current working population will be responsible for paying for the current retiring population. Unfortunately, the respective sizes of these populations can vary dramatically, which means that some generations will end up paying far more than others. People talk about Social Security like it's true time-shifted income (ie, savings), but it's not. One way we've dealt with this so far is to increase the number of people who are paying into the system while remaining ineligible for collecting benefits from it, but that's also not sustainable (and it's also a really horrible way to treat people).
    - mattlevan 10y ago
      Good points and very interesting, thanks. Once again, getting the state involved just makes things messy. Let people be responsible for their own well-being as they age. Without safety nets, people tend to be much more cautious and thoughtful when spending. Plus, people who are fit to raise smart and healthy children will also be more apt to do so, which is a must for any society!
      - coroutines 10y ago
        I am of the opinion there are very few people who can be thoughtful, at least in that long-term sense..
      - Chinjut 10y ago
        Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction to our goals (including, as stated, the moral imperative to provide comfortable old age for all, regardless of personal means).
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Social security in its current form doesn't even provide a comfortable retirement; it single handedly is keeping millions of seniors just a bit out of poverty. For that alone, it should be protected. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effect-social-security-has-had-on-us.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effe... "Researchers at the CBPP used the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, which in 2015 meant $11,367 or less for an elderly individual, $14,342 or lower for an elderly couple, and $24,257 or less for the average family of four, and compared poverty rates for the elderly (ages 65 and up), adults (ages 18-64), and children (under age 18) with and without Social Security benefits. The findings showed that Social Security benefits have kept nearly 22.1 million Americans out of poverty, with a reduction in poverty rates observed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. As you might have rightly imagined, the bulk of those being kept out of poverty are elderly Americans, which comprise about two-thirds of all enrollees to begin with. However, children and adults younger than 65 benefited, too. In total, 15.07 million elderly folks, 5.94 million adults, and 1.08 million children are all lifted above the poverty rate thanks to monthly Social Security payments. For all ages, Social Security reduces the estimated poverty rate in American 7 full percentage points to 13.5% from an estimated 20.5%. But the biggest effect is seen on seniors. https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/419987/ss-elderly-poverty-rate_large.PNG https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/419987/ss-elderly-pov... As you can see above, without Social Security income, just over four in 10 seniors would be living at or below the poverty rate. With Social Security income, just 8.8% of seniors are living in poverty. We'd obviously like to see that figure fall to 0%, but for such a vulnerable group of individuals who may not have other forms of income beyond Social Security, this data would imply that the program is doing its job."
- skybrian 10y ago
  Well, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction. Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. You can blame people for running up government debt if you like, but might as well skip talking about Social Security.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. I do not agree it has no real world effect. That money will need to be paid back to Social Security to pay people out. Its either paid by taxpayers, or by everyone through inflating our way out of the debt. Regardless, its an obligation to be paid. Stop wasting taxpayer money and start using it to take care of citizens. That's what the role of government is.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Money has to be lent to be saved, of course. If the money is not invested in the provider or public sector, then the wealth won't exist later to meet the deferred needs.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - Lazare 10y ago
    I'm not sure you understand the implications of the argument you're making. > Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. That is 100% correct. Which is the point. Those bonds are not a meaningful asset for Social Security; they have "no real-world effect" because they're an IOU payable by the same entity who offered it. But the promises Social Security made do have a real world impact, and those promises will need to be redeemed. But Social Security doesn't have any assets of the type you say "matter". And that's a problem.
- ryhamz 10y ago
  Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: take money from workers and transfer it directly. It's not even invested to generate additional wealth.
  - travi5 10y ago
    The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism. Once they are on it, they have incentives to stay on it forever. If they make even one dollar working they lose it all, so they make extra cash under the table through committing fraud, selling drugs, etc. No one can sue them and take it away, so they do things like go without insurance, buy things on credit with no intent to pay, titling their car in someone else's name, and hundreds of other tricks they learn in their new 'job'. By day they can do whatever they want. People who work have to pay not only to sustain them but also for the damage that they are causing directly to them.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      Seconded. That stood out to me too in his post. Disability seems to be widely abused in the western world. I'm for social welfare, but I'm not for mismanagement and abuse. Disability as it exists today is a concern that needs to be addressed.
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Everyone is for rugged individualism until they're incapacitated. Good luck.
        BuckRogers 10y ago
        I think you'll need the good luck with the reading comprehension displayed here. I'm as for disability assistance as much as anyone you'll find.
gravity13 10y ago
I'm personally hoping for Basic Income, myself.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I'd rather not live in a dystopic high-tech, low-life society where the elderly and destitute are tossed aside. But, as I walk down the street, I see homeless people sleeping just outside the entrance of Snapchat HQ (latest valuation @ ~$25 billion). Frak it, bring on the Guilted Age!
- zardo 10y ago
  Let them eat memes!

I don't judge people who didn't or couldn't save enough for retirement and are living on SS and Medicare exclusively. I like Socialist safety nets of those sorts, and am happy to pay into them. One day I will be old and sick too. We all will be, except those who die early. I judge you if you didn't hold your government representatives accountable for excessive discretionary spending, which was borrowed out of Social Security and will need to be paid back with higher tax rates.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Well said. Critics rarely consider the potential personal benefit of SS in the future. Now, it's not a perfect system, but it has its upsides. Critics definitely consider the personal benefit. The problem is that they don't trust that it'll actually be there, or that it's a system that actually can work as it has been designed. For example, in the 80 years that it's been in effect, the OASDI tax rate has increased sixfold and then some. That increase was fairly steady for a period of time - and the reason it's stagnated recently is not because the tax revenue is sufficient (it isn't) but because political ramifications have prevented the tax rates from increasing. Obviously this isn't sustainable. You can say, "well, the solution is just to raise taxes" - but relying on periodic changes to tax rates is not a recipe for creating a system that can achieve a stable steady state without being subject to political meddling in the long-run. A further problem is that Social Security hinges upon the idea that the current working population will be responsible for paying for the current retiring population. Unfortunately, the respective sizes of these populations can vary dramatically, which means that some generations will end up paying far more than others. People talk about Social Security like it's true time-shifted income (ie, savings), but it's not. One way we've dealt with this so far is to increase the number of people who are paying into the system while remaining ineligible for collecting benefits from it, but that's also not sustainable (and it's also a really horrible way to treat people).
  - mattlevan 10y ago
    Good points and very interesting, thanks. Once again, getting the state involved just makes things messy. Let people be responsible for their own well-being as they age. Without safety nets, people tend to be much more cautious and thoughtful when spending. Plus, people who are fit to raise smart and healthy children will also be more apt to do so, which is a must for any society!
    - coroutines 10y ago
      I am of the opinion there are very few people who can be thoughtful, at least in that long-term sense..
    - Chinjut 10y ago
      Nah, screw that. We all deserve comfortable retirements, and we should fund it as a society. Wealth inequality being what it is, yes, the wealthy can afford to chip in for the well-being of the rest of us. Or rather, we can afford to redistribute our wealth claims as a society in this way. Why not? Wealth is a logical fiction we've invented, as to who has what monetary claims we enforce, and we can bend this fiction to our goals (including, as stated, the moral imperative to provide comfortable old age for all, regardless of personal means).
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Social security in its current form doesn't even provide a comfortable retirement; it single handedly is keeping millions of seniors just a bit out of poverty. For that alone, it should be protected. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effect-social-security-has-had-on-us.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/11/24/the-stunning-effe... "Researchers at the CBPP used the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, which in 2015 meant $11,367 or less for an elderly individual, $14,342 or lower for an elderly couple, and $24,257 or less for the average family of four, and compared poverty rates for the elderly (ages 65 and up), adults (ages 18-64), and children (under age 18) with and without Social Security benefits. The findings showed that Social Security benefits have kept nearly 22.1 million Americans out of poverty, with a reduction in poverty rates observed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. As you might have rightly imagined, the bulk of those being kept out of poverty are elderly Americans, which comprise about two-thirds of all enrollees to begin with. However, children and adults younger than 65 benefited, too. In total, 15.07 million elderly folks, 5.94 million adults, and 1.08 million children are all lifted above the poverty rate thanks to monthly Social Security payments. For all ages, Social Security reduces the estimated poverty rate in American 7 full percentage points to 13.5% from an estimated 20.5%. But the biggest effect is seen on seniors. https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/419987/ss-elderly-poverty-rate_large.PNG https://g.foolcdn.com/editorial/images/419987/ss-elderly-pov... As you can see above, without Social Security income, just over four in 10 seniors would be living at or below the poverty rate. With Social Security income, just 8.8% of seniors are living in poverty. We'd obviously like to see that figure fall to 0%, but for such a vulnerable group of individuals who may not have other forms of income beyond Social Security, this data would imply that the program is doing its job."
skybrian 10y ago
Well, I hope you don't judge people for an accounting fiction. Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. Less government spending in the past would mean lower government debt (owned by private investors) today. That's only real effect. You can blame people for running up government debt if you like, but might as well skip talking about Social Security.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. The only part that matters is treasuries held by private investors. I do not agree it has no real world effect. That money will need to be paid back to Social Security to pay people out. Its either paid by taxpayers, or by everyone through inflating our way out of the debt. Regardless, its an obligation to be paid. Stop wasting taxpayer money and start using it to take care of citizens. That's what the role of government is.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Money has to be lent to be saved, of course. If the money is not invested in the provider or public sector, then the wealth won't exist later to meet the deferred needs.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- Lazare 10y ago
  I'm not sure you understand the implications of the argument you're making. > Any treasury bonds held by the federal government (for example, by the Social Security) is money the government owes to itself and has no real-world effect. That is 100% correct. Which is the point. Those bonds are not a meaningful asset for Social Security; they have "no real-world effect" because they're an IOU payable by the same entity who offered it. But the promises Social Security made do have a real world impact, and those promises will need to be redeemed. But Social Security doesn't have any assets of the type you say "matter". And that's a problem.
ryhamz 10y ago
Medicare is fine, some social security facets are fine, such as disability. Social security as a general retirement plan? Shitty program. What it should be AT MOST: mandated investment in a retirement account that you can't touch. Although I would prefer to not even have policy here at all. This is only necessary because people are by and large shit with money and will not save without being forced to. What is is: take money from workers and transfer it directly. It's not even invested to generate additional wealth.
- travi5 10y ago
  The disability program is hurting society. You can get disability for having autism. Once they are on it, they have incentives to stay on it forever. If they make even one dollar working they lose it all, so they make extra cash under the table through committing fraud, selling drugs, etc. No one can sue them and take it away, so they do things like go without insurance, buy things on credit with no intent to pay, titling their car in someone else's name, and hundreds of other tricks they learn in their new 'job'. By day they can do whatever they want. People who work have to pay not only to sustain them but also for the damage that they are causing directly to them.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    Seconded. That stood out to me too in his post. Disability seems to be widely abused in the western world. I'm for social welfare, but I'm not for mismanagement and abuse. Disability as it exists today is a concern that needs to be addressed.
    - toomuchtodo 10y ago
      Everyone is for rugged individualism until they're incapacitated. Good luck.
      - BuckRogers 10y ago
        I think you'll need the good luck with the reading comprehension displayed here. I'm as for disability assistance as much as anyone you'll find.

gravity13 10y ago

I'm personally hoping for Basic Income, myself.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I'd rather not live in a dystopic high-tech, low-life society where the elderly and destitute are tossed aside. But, as I walk down the street, I see homeless people sleeping just outside the entrance of Snapchat HQ (latest valuation @ ~$25 billion). Frak it, bring on the Guilted Age!

zardo 10y ago
Let them eat memes!