4 ms·

It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. They are using the f

It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second. If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do.

throwaway6734 4y ago
The first should be prioritized much more than the second anyways. There's no reason SS is age based and not means based
- malandrew 4y ago
  That’s not the contract though. I and many others here have been paying in for years with the expectation that I can withdraw at 65. Honestly we should allow people to opt out entirely if they can demonstrate that they are adequately funding their own retirement/disability on their own plan. Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme.
  - klipklop 4y ago
    Yeah if given a chance I would 100% opt out. Even if it was post tax dollars. I would rather manage my own future.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Social security is quasi-mandatory minimal insurance against you failing your personal retirement investments (quasi-mandatory because their are a narrow set of employers not required to participate, so you can opt-out by choosing to work for one of them.)
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    What contract? I'm in my early 30s and when I look at social security, healthcare costs, and housing costs I see the results of older generations shirking their load at the cost of future generations
  - tunesmith 4y ago
    > Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme. Only if younger generations disappear Children-of-Men style.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  > There's no reason SS is age based and not means based Political support for Social Security has always been based on the proposition that it is universal and that the benefit reflects contribution. While not required by law -- Social Security taxes are an ordinary income tax per the US Supreme Court -- this has been the explicit contract the government has made and reaffirmed repeatedly with the people for generations. It is an embedded part of the institution of Social Security. Fundamentally changing the rules at this point would be viewed as a serious violation of trust between the people and the government, at a time when that trust is already at historic lows. Pragmatic politicians also understand that this would greatly erode support for Social Security taxes, since willingness to pay that 12.4% income surtax is strongly connected to the conception that this money will be returned to them in old age. Most politicians have the survival instinct to not even suggest this is not the case, legal technicalities aside.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. It...is: the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund are separate funds that pay for different programs administered by Social Security. > They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second No, “they” (who?) aren’t. > If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do. The OASI trust fund is, essentially, just a retirement trust fund, but it doesn’t seem like you have a clue how SS is run.
- ericmcer 4y ago
  Thats true I definitely don’t know all the details of SS, just that it makes up an obscene amount of my yearly taxes (13%). So would you pay into the trust if it was optional? Why can’t I defer my SS payments by paying an equal amount into my 401k? If the purpose is to prevent society having to support elderly workers who failed to save anything that would also tick the box, but then the govt wouldn’t get to touch the money.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > So would you pay into the trust if it was optional? Maybe not, but then again, I've been working most of my adult life for an employer of the kind that can be exempt (but which is opted-in) from SS. > Why can’t I defer my SS payments by paying an equal amount into my 401k? You can't opt out of the defined-benefit safety-net retirement backstop by putting more money into a no-guaranteed-benefit personally-directed retirement plan because... of the whole point of having a backstop. > If the purpose is to prevent society having to support elderly workers who failed to save anything that would also tick the box No, it wouldn't.
    - ericmcer 4y ago
      Maybe we have different outlooks then. I would view my personal savings, assets and 401k as a sane guaranteed retirement plan, and having 0 savings but trusting the government to take care of me as a not-guaranteed plan. Not only is money I am taxed for social security gonna get way shittier returns than a 401k, I am hesitant to believe social security will look the same way it does today when I am retirement age in ~35 years.

throwaway6734 4y ago

The first should be prioritized much more than the second anyways. There's no reason SS is age based and not means based

malandrew 4y ago
That’s not the contract though. I and many others here have been paying in for years with the expectation that I can withdraw at 65. Honestly we should allow people to opt out entirely if they can demonstrate that they are adequately funding their own retirement/disability on their own plan. Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme.
- klipklop 4y ago
  Yeah if given a chance I would 100% opt out. Even if it was post tax dollars. I would rather manage my own future.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Social security is quasi-mandatory minimal insurance against you failing your personal retirement investments (quasi-mandatory because their are a narrow set of employers not required to participate, so you can opt-out by choosing to work for one of them.)
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  What contract? I'm in my early 30s and when I look at social security, healthcare costs, and housing costs I see the results of older generations shirking their load at the cost of future generations
- tunesmith 4y ago
  > Social Security as it exists now is a Ponzi scheme. Only if younger generations disappear Children-of-Men style.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
> There's no reason SS is age based and not means based Political support for Social Security has always been based on the proposition that it is universal and that the benefit reflects contribution. While not required by law -- Social Security taxes are an ordinary income tax per the US Supreme Court -- this has been the explicit contract the government has made and reaffirmed repeatedly with the people for generations. It is an embedded part of the institution of Social Security. Fundamentally changing the rules at this point would be viewed as a serious violation of trust between the people and the government, at a time when that trust is already at historic lows. Pragmatic politicians also understand that this would greatly erode support for Social Security taxes, since willingness to pay that 12.4% income surtax is strongly connected to the conception that this money will be returned to them in old age. Most politicians have the survival instinct to not even suggest this is not the case, legal technicalities aside.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> It feels like social security should be split into two things: disability for workers pre-retirement, and a Trust fund for retired workers. It...is: the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund are separate funds that pay for different programs administered by Social Security. > They are using the first as a justification to plunder the second No, “they” (who?) aren’t. > If it was just a retirement trust fund it would be ludicrous for the government to handle it in the way they do. The OASI trust fund is, essentially, just a retirement trust fund, but it doesn’t seem like you have a clue how SS is run.

ericmcer 4y ago
Thats true I definitely don’t know all the details of SS, just that it makes up an obscene amount of my yearly taxes (13%). So would you pay into the trust if it was optional? Why can’t I defer my SS payments by paying an equal amount into my 401k? If the purpose is to prevent society having to support elderly workers who failed to save anything that would also tick the box, but then the govt wouldn’t get to touch the money.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > So would you pay into the trust if it was optional? Maybe not, but then again, I've been working most of my adult life for an employer of the kind that can be exempt (but which is opted-in) from SS. > Why can’t I defer my SS payments by paying an equal amount into my 401k? You can't opt out of the defined-benefit safety-net retirement backstop by putting more money into a no-guaranteed-benefit personally-directed retirement plan because... of the whole point of having a backstop. > If the purpose is to prevent society having to support elderly workers who failed to save anything that would also tick the box No, it wouldn't.
  - ericmcer 4y ago
    Maybe we have different outlooks then. I would view my personal savings, assets and 401k as a sane guaranteed retirement plan, and having 0 savings but trusting the government to take care of me as a not-guaranteed plan. Not only is money I am taxed for social security gonna get way shittier returns than a 401k, I am hesitant to believe social security will look the same way it does today when I am retirement age in ~35 years.