4 ms·

But we don’t get 0? In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments. I

by ivalm 5y ago

But we don’t get 0? In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments. If the percentage of retirees is too large then that will lead to increase in retirement age until the percentage of retirees is balanced by the number of workers. With productivity gains due to automation hopefully we can increase number of retirees per worker. It is a very transparent system. Again, when you pay social security taxes you aren’t “saving for your retirement”, you are paying for current social security outflows. It’s how most government obligations work.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments Is that a promise? You just said no promises. Here's how the retirement system is set up, as far as I can tell. Few years from now, I start spending young people's money. They go to work, I don't go to work, they work their asses off, I don't work my ass off, they pay taxes, I get a cut of that. For many years, hopefully. Then I die. Then...I give zero fucks. It's not my problem. If it all collapses after that, who gives a shit? Not me. As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. I don't see how it makes sense to a 20 year old but I guess that's your job. Go and convince them, we're counting on you.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. For each individual, there is am illusion that you can "save" wealth which you consume in your old age. But for society as a whole, it is only possible to transfer wealth from one generation to the next. Except when the individual is "saving" he is buying from someone else who sold, and when the individual sells his assets to consume, he is selling to someone younger. If you close your eyes and don't think about the other person on the side of the trade, you can pretend that you, as an individual, have stored wealth somewhere. But for the society as a whole, it is always transfers that are taking place, so neither the 20 year old nor the 40 year has any choice -- this is the only game in town. The only question is whether these transfers be centralized or distributed, or whether they be administered by governments or private entities. But neither the shift from centralized transfers to distributed transfers nor the shift from government to private is going to make this system any less dependent on promises and transfers. It's promises and transfers simply due the lack of an efficient consumption storage technology.
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    >> the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. My grandparents' generation didn't do that. And they didn't have SSI either. Are you sure those are the only two alternatives?
    - ivalm 5y ago
      You’re right. They invested (to get cash flow from younger people during retirement) or relied on their children (to get cash flow equivalents from younger people during retirement). Kind of same how social security works (current retirees get cash flow from current workers).

by ivalm 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rufus_foreman 5y ago

>> In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments Is that a promise? You just said no promises. Here's how the retirement system is set up, as far as I can tell. Few years from now, I start spending young people's money. They go to work, I don't go to work, they work their asses off, I don't work my ass off, they pay taxes, I get a cut of that. For many years, hopefully. Then I die. Then...I give zero fucks. It's not my problem. If it all collapses after that, who gives a shit? Not me. As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. I don't see how it makes sense to a 20 year old but I guess that's your job. Go and convince them, we're counting on you.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. For each individual, there is am illusion that you can "save" wealth which you consume in your old age. But for society as a whole, it is only possible to transfer wealth from one generation to the next. Except when the individual is "saving" he is buying from someone else who sold, and when the individual sells his assets to consume, he is selling to someone younger. If you close your eyes and don't think about the other person on the side of the trade, you can pretend that you, as an individual, have stored wealth somewhere. But for the society as a whole, it is always transfers that are taking place, so neither the 20 year old nor the 40 year has any choice -- this is the only game in town. The only question is whether these transfers be centralized or distributed, or whether they be administered by governments or private entities. But neither the shift from centralized transfers to distributed transfers nor the shift from government to private is going to make this system any less dependent on promises and transfers. It's promises and transfers simply due the lack of an efficient consumption storage technology.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. My grandparents' generation didn't do that. And they didn't have SSI either. Are you sure those are the only two alternatives?
  - ivalm 5y ago
    You’re right. They invested (to get cash flow from younger people during retirement) or relied on their children (to get cash flow equivalents from younger people during retirement). Kind of same how social security works (current retirees get cash flow from current workers).