20 ms·
"Social security" including actual Social Security, Medicare, etc is a wealth transfer from the poorest Americans (young people) to the richest Americans (old p
by ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
"Social security" including actual Social Security, Medicare, etc is a wealth transfer from the poorest Americans (young people) to the richest Americans (old people).
- throwway120385 1y agoBut also it's insurance for the many older people who didn't benefit from any of the accumulated gains their age peers made over their lifetimes.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- HankStallone 1y agoAll my working life, I've assumed I would never collect on SS because it was obviously going to fail, so my "contributions" might as well have been tossed into a fire. It's kind of amazing that they've kicked that can long enough that it's starting to look like I might get a little back after all. But I still figure the Boomers will bankrupt it just in time for the checks to stop around my 62th birthday, or maybe that's when they'll start bumping the age up to stay ahead.
- throw__away7391 1y agoCovid messed with the math a bit, but it’s amazing how precisely it was designed to run out of money. My entire life since I was a kid people were talking about how it was going to run out of money but none of them did anything. Now that the boomers are retiring, now they will talk about removing the cap, raising rates, lower benefits for future recipients, but they have made damn sure that their own benefits are guaranteed and that they never had to sacrifice anything to pay for them. I remember when Al Gore talked about setting the surplus aside to fund future benefits in 2000 and everyone laughed at him. SNL made fun of him. Instead they voted to cut themselves a check and added more benefits for themselves for their children to pay for.
- jonny_eh 1y agoIt should be strengthened and available to everyone.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- tom_ 1y agoLadies and gentlemen: the duality of Man.
- darth_avocado 1y agoIt should be strengthened for the bottom and eliminated for the top. No need to cash in the checks from your 5th million dollar vacation home.
- jonny_eh 1y agoJust charge the rich more in taxes, that covers the fairness. If you only leave the benefit for the poor, then the rich will scrap the system.
- atomicnumber3 1y agoAre you just going around arguing with everyone in bad faith just because you are convinced of your position? I see you all over this thread just throwing out any reasons you can that it should be removed. It seems like you have your mind made up and are just here to evangelize, not discuss. Hacker News is for discussion and open-mindedness.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoIt's weird to me because I seem to be replying to people talking from a prescriptive position (ie "social security should care for the elderly"), while I am trying to force the conversation to a descriptive (ie here are the actual observed impacts of social security). I don't want to discuss should-statements, and I don't think that violates the spirit of HN.
- pdntspa 1y agoOne day you will be old and get to benefit from that wealth transfer
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoLikely not. I don't think it will be solvent by that time.
- kube-system 1y agoOnly if politicians choose to intentionally make it so.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThis isn't a political choice, but rather a demographic reality. Plus the usual corruption, etc.
- kube-system 1y agoThe tax rate itself is plainly a political choice. The demographic issues are a consequence of political choices, e.g. the way we prevent working age people from coming to this country to pay into the system. (and now, kick some of them out).. but also, the ways that choose not to enable families to comfortably have children.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoMass immigration has proven to be a net cost.
- kube-system 1y agoThat's quite a tall claim to be making about a country built on immigration. The greatest periods of economic growth in the US are correlated with immigration rates. I don't know what "proof" you have but remember that the economic impacts of demographic shifts are pretty broad, so I would suggest you validate that your source is taking that into account, and isn't intentionally biased for political reasons. The overwhelmingly predominant economic opinion is that immigration is very valuable in growing a country's wealth.
- kube-system 1y agoThe point of social security is not to prop up average wealth, but a guarantee to prop up the poorest individuals.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoIs that what it actually does today in the US?
- kube-system 1y agoYes, the poor and elderly in the US overwhelmingly rely on Social Security for their basic needs.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoUndoubtedly true. Is it only people who are (poor AND elderly) or are (elderly)?
- kube-system 1y agoThe fact that the income is guaranteed is an important part of being an effective safety net. Nets with holes in them don't work -- you don't want to create just another retirement plan that can fail and leave grandma homeless. Otherwise you're back to square one with the same problem. Boomers might have a bunch of wealth on paper when you count the value of their deferred-maintenance post-war home, and their 401k that is invested in a tech bubble -- but if their home burns down and the markets crash, even 'rich' boomers need a rent check on the first of the month. Not to mention, that means testing also places burdens on the poorest among us that can be insurmountable for some. A social safety net that doesn't catch these people is worthless, as it fails the entire point of having one instead of relying on private retirements.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoA social safety net that destroys the payors (younger generations) is worthless. Everything has a cost. The cost of social security outweighs the benefit.
- Analemma_ 1y agoIt's a textbook example of the classic political problem (and I don't just mean in democracies, every system is vulnerable to this) where subsidies and handouts are extremely sticky and almost impossible to get rid of, even when the underlying condition has changed and the original motivation for the subsidies no longer applies. Social Security made sense in a world where you had a 10:1 worker-to-dependent ratio and people rarely lived for very long after retirement. But right now it's exactly the opposite: the dependency ratio is cratering, people can live on SS for decades, and the Boomers are hugely rich while their grandchildren can't afford a house. We desperately need to completely invert Social Security and instead have massive wealth transfers from the old to the young. But that's politically quite impossible, so this perverse situation remains.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoTotally agree. Distributed costs, concentrated benefits.
- RhysU 1y ago> ...instead have massive wealth transfers from the old to the young... Free public schooling through 12th grade is one such transfer.
- SirFatty 1y agoExcept all the money taken from my check each and every payday. So yeah, wealth transfer...
- mindslight 1y agoWhile you're not wrong, focusing on social security instead of the massive bankster handouts for the past 40 years is fighting over scraps and really distracts from discussing the actual problem of monetary inflation driven wealth centralization. Nobody is getting rich from social security - it basically covers living expenses, if you're lucky. And the 15% income tax isn't responsible for destroying personal financial situations - rather it's the extreme asset inflation and corresponding rampant hyperfinancialization (eg ballooning rent, insurance) that have made so many people effectively poor.
- RickJWagner 1y agoSocial Security is a progressive tax. Workers with lower wages get a relatively larger portion compared to the workers that had a higher paycheck.