5 ms·

First, you're right, both parties have diverted Social Security surpluses. But only one party -- the GOP -- is trying to avoid paying it back, using the SS defi

First, you're right, both parties have diverted Social Security surpluses. But only one party -- the GOP -- is trying to avoid paying it back, using the SS deficit as a tool to dismantle or alter the program. Second, that doesn't change the social contract we have with people who have spent their entire lives paying out up to $6000 a year in wages to the fund. Third, yes, while baby boomers retire, it will run a deficit. But if the surpluses over the last SEVENTY YEARS hadn't been diverted to the general fund, they'd have enough in the "lock box" (that Al Gore advocated for in the 2000 election) to pay for 'boomer retirements. Look at the predictions made by FDR's guys in 193(4?) about social security. They are surprisingly correct. They saw this coming. The only thing they didn't do is force a segregation of funds.

cookiecaper 15y ago
>Second, that doesn't change the social contract we have with people who have spent their entire lives paying out up to $6000 a year in wages to the fund. A good reason not to trust the government to keep a forced retirement account on your behalf. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick here eventually. I would prefer that people own up to this and we set up an orderly, phased dismantling of the program, but that doesn't seem very likely. Politicians and head-in-the-sand populace apparently insist on a single disastrous collapse that leaves millions insolvent rather than admitting and accepting that there will be some controlled loss involved in a phaseout.
- jlangenauer 15y ago
  As opposed to forced retirement accounts you manage yourself? Make no mistake, no sane government would allow for completely voluntary contributions to any sort of pension or superannuation scheme - it'd be setting its country up for a massive economic and social timebomb as the majority of the population put present wants over future needs. As for investing pensions in the stock market, I'll merely add that in Australia, where we've had superannuation for 20 -odd years, all usually invested in stocks, there were are a large number of people who thought they were going to retire in 2008 (my parents amongst them) who are now still working.
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    I strongly disagree that retirement accounts should be mandated by the government. If people won't save for retirement, they should understand that the government can't help them. This philosophy that the peon is too stupid and/or undisciplined to manage his own accounts and that the government must protect him from himself is what gets us into huge messes like this in the first place.
    - jtheory 15y ago
      I understand this point of view, but at the end of the day, government policy needs to be based on what's going to work out the best for the public. It perhaps goes without saying that there are more than two approaches, but yours is one that I think we can rule out logically. Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he's making now (even if he feels like he's barely paying his bills), that he absolutely must set aside enough (and invest it wisely, assuming he has the wisdom to do so), will he manage to do it? From what I understand of human psychology, the answer isn't "yes" nearly enough to make your solution palatable. It sets up a good learning experience for him when he finally gets to retirement age and finds himself as a greeter in Walmart, but it's way, way too late at that point. No one wore seatbelts before they were legally required (and still many don't, and many still die because of that dumb decision). People don't, as a rule, have a good grasp of the distant future and/or events that seem unlikely. How many people are still starting smoking, even though it says "cigarettes kill" in big black letters on that first pack they buy? There are plenty of problems with the US social security system, but removing the safety net entirely to teach a lesson to people who fail to adequately prepare for their old age doesn't feel like a sound approach to me.
      - 18pfsmt 15y ago
        Somehow, the Federalists have managed to change the conversation from, "should the state provide this service?" to, "should the government provide this service?" I don't quite understand why the state governments should not make their own choices, and people can move to the states that they find have the most acceptable laws to them.
alttag 15y ago
A legislative body can't force a segmentation of funds on their own! (I always laughed when my state legislators promised to do this.) Such a decision is overridable by 50%+1 of the legislative body--that same number that is would take to spend the money. Okay, yes, a constitutional amendment would work, but I suspect most legislators proposing a "wall" like the one in question would be lukewarm to the idea.
watchandwait 15y ago
How, exactly, do you propose "paying it back"? Social Security is already a TERRIBLE deal for current workers. The only options are to either limit benefits to retirees, who are already getting more than they paid in (payroll taxes are higher now than they were before 1983), or to make Social Security an even worse deal by taxing current workers even more.
- encoderer 15y ago
  Right now FICA taxes are limited to the first 100k (ish) of pay. Increase that, or remove the cap altogether. Just to be clear -- that would effect me, so I'm not advocating for others to pay the price.

cookiecaper 15y ago

>Second, that doesn't change the social contract we have with people who have spent their entire lives paying out up to $6000 a year in wages to the fund. A good reason not to trust the government to keep a forced retirement account on your behalf. Someone is going to get the short end of the stick here eventually. I would prefer that people own up to this and we set up an orderly, phased dismantling of the program, but that doesn't seem very likely. Politicians and head-in-the-sand populace apparently insist on a single disastrous collapse that leaves millions insolvent rather than admitting and accepting that there will be some controlled loss involved in a phaseout.

jlangenauer 15y ago
As opposed to forced retirement accounts you manage yourself? Make no mistake, no sane government would allow for completely voluntary contributions to any sort of pension or superannuation scheme - it'd be setting its country up for a massive economic and social timebomb as the majority of the population put present wants over future needs. As for investing pensions in the stock market, I'll merely add that in Australia, where we've had superannuation for 20 -odd years, all usually invested in stocks, there were are a large number of people who thought they were going to retire in 2008 (my parents amongst them) who are now still working.
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  I strongly disagree that retirement accounts should be mandated by the government. If people won't save for retirement, they should understand that the government can't help them. This philosophy that the peon is too stupid and/or undisciplined to manage his own accounts and that the government must protect him from himself is what gets us into huge messes like this in the first place.
  - jtheory 15y ago
    I understand this point of view, but at the end of the day, government policy needs to be based on what's going to work out the best for the public. It perhaps goes without saying that there are more than two approaches, but yours is one that I think we can rule out logically. Psychologically, does it work? In general, if you tell a 22-year-old that in 40-something years he's going to really need some of the money he's making now (even if he feels like he's barely paying his bills), that he absolutely must set aside enough (and invest it wisely, assuming he has the wisdom to do so), will he manage to do it? From what I understand of human psychology, the answer isn't "yes" nearly enough to make your solution palatable. It sets up a good learning experience for him when he finally gets to retirement age and finds himself as a greeter in Walmart, but it's way, way too late at that point. No one wore seatbelts before they were legally required (and still many don't, and many still die because of that dumb decision). People don't, as a rule, have a good grasp of the distant future and/or events that seem unlikely. How many people are still starting smoking, even though it says "cigarettes kill" in big black letters on that first pack they buy? There are plenty of problems with the US social security system, but removing the safety net entirely to teach a lesson to people who fail to adequately prepare for their old age doesn't feel like a sound approach to me.
    - 18pfsmt 15y ago
      Somehow, the Federalists have managed to change the conversation from, "should the state provide this service?" to, "should the government provide this service?" I don't quite understand why the state governments should not make their own choices, and people can move to the states that they find have the most acceptable laws to them.

alttag 15y ago

A legislative body can't force a segmentation of funds on their own! (I always laughed when my state legislators promised to do this.) Such a decision is overridable by 50%+1 of the legislative body--that same number that is would take to spend the money. Okay, yes, a constitutional amendment would work, but I suspect most legislators proposing a "wall" like the one in question would be lukewarm to the idea.

watchandwait 15y ago

How, exactly, do you propose "paying it back"? Social Security is already a TERRIBLE deal for current workers. The only options are to either limit benefits to retirees, who are already getting more than they paid in (payroll taxes are higher now than they were before 1983), or to make Social Security an even worse deal by taxing current workers even more.

encoderer 15y ago
Right now FICA taxes are limited to the first 100k (ish) of pay. Increase that, or remove the cap altogether. Just to be clear -- that would effect me, so I'm not advocating for others to pay the price.