3 ms·

Unfortunately, what Cato says is very worrying (1). Primarily, they highlight court cases in which Social Security is pulled away from people, and reaffirmed by

Unfortunately, what Cato says is very worrying (1). Primarily, they highlight court cases in which Social Security is pulled away from people, and reaffirmed by SCOTUS. This is the troubling quote: The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.” We would likely have a national riot if Social Security was just yanked at once. But if my own life is any guess, the age to qualify for "benefits" keeps going higher and higher. It's theft by attrition, and backed as not theft by courts. I do not agree with CATO's eventual policy of "privatization" at all. The other choice, which was not posited, was to earmark the funds, keep them segregated from the general fund. Then do the right thing and set Social Security as a guarantee at the same age for everyone. And, remove that cap. (1) https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-social-security https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/is-there-right-...

Brockenstein 9y ago
>Then do the right thing and set Social Security as a guarantee at the same age for everyone. You have to take in consideration a few factors governing the original social security age limits. IE Life expectancy was significantly less. People live on average quite a bit longer now, addressing that reality isn't a bad idea. The other thing to consider is the money we're paying in now isn't being saved for our benefit later. It's being used to pay the benefits of current retirees. Not to mention the money that current retirees paid into the system 20, 30, 40 years ago is a pittance to what they're drawing now. I mean I like the idea of social security. A lot of people do, it's become ingrained in our national expectation. But in the same token, a lot of people don't have realistic thoughts about it. And we're going to need it to evolve with the realities of our culture. Longer lifespans, real cost of living, etc are all real issues that can't be ignored and expect Social Security to chug on perpetually.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Social Security is perfectly sustainable. The problem with is the demographic bump of the baby boom and use of it as a political football during the 60s and 70s when benefits were spun up, followed by the congress reducing funding by capping payments.
  - mobilefriendly 9y ago
    Payments have always been capped (maximum taxable earnings), your history is factually wrong. Congress spends the surplus but the only actions ever taken by Congress on the revenue side of Social Security have been to increase taxes paid into the system.
    - Spooky23 9y ago
      The cap didn’t increase with inflation, which impacted collections. In effect the payroll tax was spun up in the 80s and used as government revenue via special bonds. But as the surplus as waned due to increased payments, the cap didn’t move and the government’s spending power to bridge the gap was reduced by our post-2001 perpetual war.

Brockenstein 9y ago

>Then do the right thing and set Social Security as a guarantee at the same age for everyone. You have to take in consideration a few factors governing the original social security age limits. IE Life expectancy was significantly less. People live on average quite a bit longer now, addressing that reality isn't a bad idea. The other thing to consider is the money we're paying in now isn't being saved for our benefit later. It's being used to pay the benefits of current retirees. Not to mention the money that current retirees paid into the system 20, 30, 40 years ago is a pittance to what they're drawing now. I mean I like the idea of social security. A lot of people do, it's become ingrained in our national expectation. But in the same token, a lot of people don't have realistic thoughts about it. And we're going to need it to evolve with the realities of our culture. Longer lifespans, real cost of living, etc are all real issues that can't be ignored and expect Social Security to chug on perpetually.

Spooky23 9y ago
Social Security is perfectly sustainable. The problem with is the demographic bump of the baby boom and use of it as a political football during the 60s and 70s when benefits were spun up, followed by the congress reducing funding by capping payments.
- mobilefriendly 9y ago
  Payments have always been capped (maximum taxable earnings), your history is factually wrong. Congress spends the surplus but the only actions ever taken by Congress on the revenue side of Social Security have been to increase taxes paid into the system.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    The cap didn’t increase with inflation, which impacted collections. In effect the payroll tax was spun up in the 80s and used as government revenue via special bonds. But as the surplus as waned due to increased payments, the cap didn’t move and the government’s spending power to bridge the gap was reduced by our post-2001 perpetual war.