4 ms·

In the long run, people with no children, on average, cost more than people who raise several taxpayers into adulthood. People are entitled to several times wha

In the long run, people with no children, on average, cost more than people who raise several taxpayers into adulthood. People are entitled to several times what they put in to the social security system. That money comes from somewhere. And, for the childless, that's other peoples' kids, mostly.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mdorazio 8y ago
Please stop making up facts. No one is entitled to "several times" what they put in to social security. It comes out pretty close to even [1]. And that's if you completely ignore the time-value of money. If you treat social security as a wealth fund (like you're supposed to) rather than a "I'm paying for my parents" fund, the average person is getting less because their contributions should be earning a huge amount of interest over their working life. Remember, too, that if you're self-employed or make a lot of money you're going to get back significantly less than you put in because of the way the caps work. There's a good chance that a successful childless person is going to subsidize the social security payouts for people who sacrifice career have a bunch of kids. The only place you get significantly more than you put in is Medicare, and that's because healthcare costs in America are out of control. More kids doesn't help that. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/12/03/aarp-lobbies-for-100000-plus-medicare-subsidy-for-seniors/#22a4e8f16bdd https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/12/03/aarp-lo...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > If you treat social security as a wealth fund (like you're supposed to) rather than a "I'm paying for my parents" fund, the average person is getting less because their contributions should be earning a huge amount of interest over their working life. That's because it is an "I'm paying for my parents" fund. When the system started out it paid benefits to people who never paid into the system. The only reason there is any money in the "trust fund" at all is a result of population/GDP growth. If there was a population decline from too many couples having only one child it would bankrupt the system. Moreover, the social security "trust fund" consists of government bonds, but bonds held by the government itself are just self-canceling worthless paper. Every dollar of credit is also a dollar of debt that the people who supposedly paid into the system actually spent on past government services. It's their children who inherit that debt whether you call it a "trust fund" or not. And if they have no children, the debt falls on someone else's children. > Remember, too, that if you're self-employed or make a lot of money you're going to get back significantly less than you put in because of the way the caps work. There are corresponding caps on social security tax for the same people. And self-employed people don't actually pay more, the "employer portion" is a subterfuge to make the social security tax rate seem to be half what it really is. Employers just deduct it from what they're willing to offer as compensation, which makes it seem like people are being paid less when they're really being taxed more.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
nsnick 8y ago
What you are describing is a Ponzi Scheme
- jabgrabdthrow 8y ago
  No, he’s describing redistribution (some people get a bigger payout proportional to what they paid in). You can have solvent pyramid shaped schemes, and SS isn’t even pyramid shaped except incidentally.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mdorazio 8y ago

Please stop making up facts. No one is entitled to "several times" what they put in to social security. It comes out pretty close to even [1]. And that's if you completely ignore the time-value of money. If you treat social security as a wealth fund (like you're supposed to) rather than a "I'm paying for my parents" fund, the average person is getting less because their contributions should be earning a huge amount of interest over their working life. Remember, too, that if you're self-employed or make a lot of money you're going to get back significantly less than you put in because of the way the caps work. There's a good chance that a successful childless person is going to subsidize the social security payouts for people who sacrifice career have a bunch of kids. The only place you get significantly more than you put in is Medicare, and that's because healthcare costs in America are out of control. More kids doesn't help that. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/12/03/aarp-lobbies-for-100000-plus-medicare-subsidy-for-seniors/#22a4e8f16bdd https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisconover/2012/12/03/aarp-lo...

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> If you treat social security as a wealth fund (like you're supposed to) rather than a "I'm paying for my parents" fund, the average person is getting less because their contributions should be earning a huge amount of interest over their working life. That's because it is an "I'm paying for my parents" fund. When the system started out it paid benefits to people who never paid into the system. The only reason there is any money in the "trust fund" at all is a result of population/GDP growth. If there was a population decline from too many couples having only one child it would bankrupt the system. Moreover, the social security "trust fund" consists of government bonds, but bonds held by the government itself are just self-canceling worthless paper. Every dollar of credit is also a dollar of debt that the people who supposedly paid into the system actually spent on past government services. It's their children who inherit that debt whether you call it a "trust fund" or not. And if they have no children, the debt falls on someone else's children. > Remember, too, that if you're self-employed or make a lot of money you're going to get back significantly less than you put in because of the way the caps work. There are corresponding caps on social security tax for the same people. And self-employed people don't actually pay more, the "employer portion" is a subterfuge to make the social security tax rate seem to be half what it really is. Employers just deduct it from what they're willing to offer as compensation, which makes it seem like people are being paid less when they're really being taxed more.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

nsnick 8y ago

What you are describing is a Ponzi Scheme

jabgrabdthrow 8y ago
No, he’s describing redistribution (some people get a bigger payout proportional to what they paid in). You can have solvent pyramid shaped schemes, and SS isn’t even pyramid shaped except incidentally.