5 ms·

Is that what it actually does today in the US?

by ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

kube-system 1y ago
Yes, the poor and elderly in the US overwhelmingly rely on Social Security for their basic needs.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Undoubtedly true. Is it only people who are (poor AND elderly) or are (elderly)?
  - kube-system 1y ago
    The 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 ago
      A social safety net that destroys the payors (younger generations) is worthless. Everything has a cost. The cost of social security outweighs the benefit.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        We'd have literally millions of starving and homeless elderly people without social security. Young people are not being destroyed by 6.2% SS taxes.
        ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Something(s) have destroyed young people. It's plain in the birth rates across the western world. Also SS is 12.4% (employer + employee) and medicare is another 2.9% (employer + employee).
        kube-system 1y ago
        I can tell you one thing for certain, declining birth rates across the entire western world are not due to Social Security and payroll taxes on Americans alone. And the fact that it is happening everywhere, is pretty good evidence that it's not Social Security's fault here. There's a lot of research out there that answers that question. There are many reasons for declining birth rates, and those include cultural changes, changes an expectations of the standard of living, changes in family planning priorities. If you really want to know the true answer to this, you don't need to ask a tax advisor or a politician, you need to ask a sociologist.
ilamont 1y ago
For 15% of women and 12% of men Social Security is the only source of cash in old age owing to a number of factors: low-paying jobs, poor saving habits, divorce, caregiving for relatives, medical bankruptcy, etc. See https://www.aarp.org/social-security/americans-depend-on-social-security/ https://www.aarp.org/social-security/americans-depend-on-soc...
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Young people have all those same cash flow issues, but are also our future (if they have kids). In terms of who to subsidize, it should be the youngs, not the olds.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    The assumption is that if you’re 25 and you need money you’re likely healthy enough to work 40+ hours a week. Much less likely if you’re 67+.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Does the assumption that hard work = ability to raise a family match the reality of what 20s are experiencing today?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - kube-system 1y ago
    Young people aren't going to be able to afford a child with a couple percent payroll tax cut. They need healthcare, time off of work, and a decent school to send their child to.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Sure, but are you making the argument that we shouldn't do something because in fact we'd also need to do even more too. Yes do all of those things. Demographics are destiny. We need young people to have kids.
jandrewrogers 1y ago
Approximately. The pension payout is disproportionately weighted toward people with low lifetime earnings relative to what they pay into it. The caveat is that your pension payout reflects lifetime earnings, not your income when you are elderly.

Is that what it actually does today in the US?

kube-system 1y ago

Yes, the poor and elderly in the US overwhelmingly rely on Social Security for their basic needs.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Undoubtedly true. Is it only people who are (poor AND elderly) or are (elderly)?
- kube-system 1y ago
  The 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 ago
    A social safety net that destroys the payors (younger generations) is worthless. Everything has a cost. The cost of social security outweighs the benefit.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      We'd have literally millions of starving and homeless elderly people without social security. Young people are not being destroyed by 6.2% SS taxes.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Something(s) have destroyed young people. It's plain in the birth rates across the western world. Also SS is 12.4% (employer + employee) and medicare is another 2.9% (employer + employee).
        kube-system 1y ago
        I can tell you one thing for certain, declining birth rates across the entire western world are not due to Social Security and payroll taxes on Americans alone. And the fact that it is happening everywhere, is pretty good evidence that it's not Social Security's fault here. There's a lot of research out there that answers that question. There are many reasons for declining birth rates, and those include cultural changes, changes an expectations of the standard of living, changes in family planning priorities. If you really want to know the true answer to this, you don't need to ask a tax advisor or a politician, you need to ask a sociologist.

ilamont 1y ago

For 15% of women and 12% of men Social Security is the only source of cash in old age owing to a number of factors: low-paying jobs, poor saving habits, divorce, caregiving for relatives, medical bankruptcy, etc. See https://www.aarp.org/social-security/americans-depend-on-social-security/ https://www.aarp.org/social-security/americans-depend-on-soc...

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Young people have all those same cash flow issues, but are also our future (if they have kids). In terms of who to subsidize, it should be the youngs, not the olds.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  The assumption is that if you’re 25 and you need money you’re likely healthy enough to work 40+ hours a week. Much less likely if you’re 67+.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Does the assumption that hard work = ability to raise a family match the reality of what 20s are experiencing today?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- kube-system 1y ago
  Young people aren't going to be able to afford a child with a couple percent payroll tax cut. They need healthcare, time off of work, and a decent school to send their child to.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Sure, but are you making the argument that we shouldn't do something because in fact we'd also need to do even more too. Yes do all of those things. Demographics are destiny. We need young people to have kids.

jandrewrogers 1y ago

Approximately. The pension payout is disproportionately weighted toward people with low lifetime earnings relative to what they pay into it. The caveat is that your pension payout reflects lifetime earnings, not your income when you are elderly.