Worried about the viability of Social Security? Unless you're already collecting it, you should be!
Follow the animated adventures of Sonny, exactly the sort of youth who is set to get screwed by a system designed during The Great Depression, when workers were plenty and retirees rare.
Click on the image below to watch. Click here to watch the previous episodes and for embed information.
I actually agree with John-David -- although I would prefer that Social Security be abolished altogether, if the program is going to be continued there's no justifiable reason to not lift the cap.
But that doesn't change anything Jack. Its still an ineffective program that will go belly up at some point. Raising the cap might fix problems for a time, but it doesnt change whats wrong with the program. And also, if you give the government more tax money by raising the cap will they do the responsible thing and use it towards SS, or will they do the politician thing and spend it on something else?
I don't get the "lift the cap" B.S. Has reason gotten overrun by
chuckleheads? How does giving Congress more money now to spend now
enhance our security in the future? Anyone?
Anyone?
Jack has it right. If there has to be Social Security (and it
ain't going anywhere, sorry, folks), it makes no sense to have an
income cap on payments. I would rather there be no Social Security,
but since it is here for at least the lifetimes of those of us
posting here, it makes no sense to cap the income level at which
FICA taxes are collected.
Someone give me a realistic argument for capping SS taxes,
please.
But all the liberaltarians at Reason are voting for Obama! He
will save us all! When we retire there will be all this money in
our social security accounts! We can spend our golden years in our
house paid for with a government mortgage, get a monthly government
check, and have government provided health care. All Hail Obama
from Whom All Blessing Flow!
How can you possibly be a libertarian and not vote for him? Don't
you know we need to punish the Republicans?
But all some of the liberaltarians
libertarians at Reason are voting for Obama! He will save us
all! When we retire there will be all this money in our social
security accounts! We can spend our golden years in our house paid
for with a government mortgage, get a monthly government check, and
have government provided health care. All Hail Obama from Whom All
Blessing Flow!
Don't you know we
How can you possibly be a libertarian and not vote for him?need might improve things by
to punish tossing big government
Republicans?
Fixed.
We might improve things by tossing Big Government Republicans?
Possibly. But with probability 1 we will get the same (or more)
under an Obama administration with a Democratically controlled
Congress.
Vote for Gridlock on November 4th.
But all the liberaltarians at Reason are voting for
Obama!
Yeah, that sort of Terry Michaels warmed-over New Democratic
mindset is why I stopped subscribing to Reason years ago. If I'm
going to keep getting the same old shit as from other "opinion
mags," I might as well wait for it to be free on the 'Net.
"But all the liberaltarians at Reason are voting for
Obama!"
Presidential candidates in the rear view mirror are closer than
they appear.
Christianity > altruism > Social Security.
All you have to do is get rid of Christianity, and the concept that
we are our brothers' keepers will go away. Easy, no? I do admit
that this will take some time. Another thousand years should do it,
two thousand in the Deep South.
I have long felt that Social Security would be a thing of the
past when I got to that age and its never looked more evident than
now.
Jiff
www.Privacy-Center.net
Of course, there's that pesky historical precedent of socialism filling the vacuum of religion. Big-haired Republican types (yeah, I'm lookin' at you, Liddy Dole) have never understood that so-called "atheist" communism and good-old-fashioned Christianity are two sides of the same coin. Both regard man as a sacrificial being. But I'm preaching to the choir, or what's left of it.
Ed,
I am an atheist. I became atheist after reading Ayn Rand and that
is (I am guessing) the context from which you write. Correct me if
I am wrong. But I would arrange your chart slightly differently. I
would argue that the real problem is what I call nanyism, the
inability of some parents to let their kids grow up and let them
make mistakes. It is a desire to never take the training wheels off
their kids bicycles. I am very glad that I read Ayn Rand, she
opened my eyes on many, many things. But I think she was wrong on a
few points. One point I think she was wrong on is that I think she
was wrong that religion lead to irrationality. I would say the
reverse is true; I would say that it is irrationality that leads to
religion. I would rather live in a community of peaceful Quakers
that a community of busybody Maoists.
If I were in favor of saving Social Security, I'd eliminate benefits to people with incomes higher than 100K, and reduce benefits to people with incomes between 50K to 100k. Why is retired GE CEO Jack Welch getting 12k a year in Social Security benefits? Wasn't this supposed to be a social safety net? Why provide a net to people who are in no danger of falling?
I find it ironic that that its the Democratic party, home of atheists, that are the great defenders of SS but you argue that its religion that led to it. Being your brother's keeper is an individual relationship. Giving money to the government to be your brother's keeper for you is laziness.
Brandon,
I am an atheist and the Democratic Party is not now nor has it ever
been my "home". Before I became Libertarian I was a Republican,
never a Democrat. I am a strong defender of the Free Market.
"I find it ironic that that its the Democratic party, home of
atheists, that are the great defenders of SS but you argue that its
religion that led to it. Being your brother's keeper is an
individual relationship. Giving money to the government to be your
brother's keeper for you is laziness."
Friedrich Nietzsche argued that the West (since its adoption of
Christianity) suffered from a "slave morality". In other words, the
West had a morality that subservience to others was somehow moral.
Ayn Rand, although not exactly a follower of Nietzsche (she
actually had more respect for Aristotle than Nietzsche), was
none-the-less heavily influenced by many of his ideas.
Forcing others into charitable acts is the physical manifestation of the concept: You are your brothers' keeper. "From each according to his ability..." etc. Social Security is nothing less than forced charity, disguised as "a public good", that "good" being a government-sanctioned and enforced altruism, which has its modern origins in all the so-called "great" religions. It goes back further than that, of course, into the deep recesses of prehistory. It has taken us a hundred-thousand years to escape it but we seem determined to return to it. We delude ourselves when we say it can't happen again. Ask anyone who survived the USSR or Red China. It can happen almost overnight. Wait till we're confronted with a real economic crisis...
ed,
German beer? Bah! (waves hand dismissively) Knob Creek or Blantons
should be your opiate.
Robert E.,
Jack Welch paid into it. He should get his share. Looter!
Ed, I would argue that it is force that is the problem. It is not charity that is the problem. I donated to the Reason Foundation during its "pledge drive". No one forced me to do this. I have also donated to the Red Cross and Goodwill. I have also donated to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. No one "forced" me to do any of these things. I chose to.
Why is retired GE CEO Jack Welch getting 12k a year in Social Security benefits? Wasn't this supposed to be a social safety net? Why provide a net to people who are in no danger of falling?
Well because that sort of removes the artifice of the program as it
exists today. Do that and there's no point in listing income taxes
and payroll taxes as separate taxes on people's pay stubs.
Much of the current social security tax system succeeds somewhat in
part because much of what is going on is disguised as something
else. Someone making $10.00 an hour "before taxes" often doesn't
realize that they're actually making $10.75 an hour before taxes.
Also if suddenly we had a SS system where someone paid into it for
forty years and then got zilch back, it then would obviously be
just another income tax and should be delineated as such.
SS is a way to pay older people a pension and works as long as
the population pyramid is very, well, steeply pyramid shaped.. But
since people are getting older and population growth is low we have
a problem.
Solutions are simple: unlimited immigration so we can get all the
hard-working, baby-making, people into the mix OR replace SS with a
pension drawn from regular taxes and at the same level for everyone
(not tied to former earnings). That way we could keep people off
the cat food but not overpay rich people who should have saved for
their retirement in any case.
Of course we could also make SS payments end at 76 leaving the
elderly beholden to family, savings or charity but pushing the
system forward quite a few years.
BTW: I think with the recent market crash, the argument put forward
here will fall on deaf ears.
Yeah, wingnuts. Stop being all wingnutty. You're just trying to destroy everybody with your wingnutty wingnuttism.
The preceding posts are the courtesy of your friendly
neighborhood joker.
Coming up next week: The rightwing trolls respond to election
results!
Privatization of SS only changes the villain, but I guess Reason
is comfortable with Goldmansachs et al raiding SS funds than the
Govt. With part five this video series turned into a joke. If i
want to read corporatist bullshit i'll spend my money on the
economist, thank you.
P.S.
you can stop asking me to renew my subscription now, i prefer free
bullshit to wasting 20 odd dollars.
You all just want poor old seniors to starve, don't you?
"...poor old seniors..."
You mean those people that have failed to address the SS ponzi
scheme longer than anybody else?
We parents better treat our kids right. Tough shit for the childless. Raising the cap won't do crap, especially when people downshift their effort in response to unfriendly tax signals. Short of some biological attack, the program will become elderly welfare. So, no more saving for me, if my big spending neighbor gets free shit when he retires, I'll be damned if I don't get it too.
I should have said "short of some biological attack, or government rationed healthcare,".
I'm sorry about the confusion but the posts by "joe", "Lefiti", and "Edward" were joke posts by me. With joe I don't think I was too subtle. His arguments usually aren't one-liner emotional appeals. And Lefiti/Edward deserves to be made fun of. Mercilessly.
For all those that want to raise the SS caps, you can do that
now. Pour your own money into some sort of program, be it IRA/401k,
ethanol futures or whatever. I know who is paying for my SS, I
happen to believe it's immoral for me to expect my
kids/grandchildren to pay my way at this point in my life. I will
do my best to reward their efforts with some sort of inheritance.
After all, it's for the children.
I would have been much better off had I been allowed to invest my
payroll taxes myself, rather than the pittance I get in return from
SS.
You all just want poor old seniors to starve, don't
you?
The "poor old seniors" I see every day are worth a thousand times
more than I'll ever be. Saw one today, just ahead of me in the
speed lane at Publix. Yes, she had exceeded the 10-item limit by at
least twofold ("Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to be a little over
the limit, the other lines were so long, I'm a senior,
pity me, waahhh!"). She had as many coupons as items, by the way,
and left the lot driving an Infinity QX56. Pity the poor
seniors.
I see the wingnuts are at it again. Didn't the "private account" bullshit die almost four years ago?
Oh noes the collectivists will require that the current generation give back something to the generation before them. The libertarian sky is falling!
@ed-Do you expect that inane comment to prove anything other than the fact that you are an idiot?
gee, everybody seems to whine about social security. outside of
the ponzi scheme nature of social security which makes it's failure
inevitable, everybody seems to ignore unemployment and the quasi
private workman's compensation insurance scheme.
screw the private accounts and ethanol futures, looks like stock in
SOYLENT GREEN is the wave of the future...
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|10.31.08 @ 6:42PM|#
"Make some golden fries in your golden years.", that's pretty good.
economist|10.31.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Not gonna happen. I'm getting older, and I've gotten to where I don't really care much about SS anymore. Kids these days are more likely to jump on the "hope and change" bandwagon than actually look at the massive screwover.
SIV|10.31.08 @ 6:54PM|#
I haven't watched one of these yet.
|10.31.08 @ 7:04PM|#
All right, I finally watched the first 4. Of all the things mentioned, the one I can get behind, and lose my lib card in the process, is lifting the ceiling on FICA. If Social Security is a safety net, why make it regressive? I haven't seen any arguments about applying FICA to capital gains, which might work well with a large exemption.
Ben|10.31.08 @ 7:42PM|#
John-David--when is "higher taxes" ever an effective solution to anything?
Untermensch|10.31.08 @ 7:50PM|#
If the government is going to try to give out the goodies, the politicians should at least admit that these things cost money so the debate isn't between "free" ice cream and ponies and something else apparently less attractive. A good way to make those ice cream and ponies look a little less attractive is to admit that we need to pay higher taxes to have them. So I think that higher taxes might actually be effective at taking the shine of those ponies and the teeth of those politicos giving them away.
|10.31.08 @ 9:25PM|#
But they still wouldn't be "our" accounts, i know my preference is too much to ask for, just don;t take it out of my paycheck and let me worry about it. Let's hope that stock market don't go down when im 70. "Private accounts" my ass. I'd settle on JD's response too, raise the cap. My libertarian card was most likely worthless anyway.
|10.31.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Also,
It's so much better to let the government choose which private accounts i may choose from. Please let private accounts be dead as a doornail.
yingge|10.31.08 @ 9:35PM|#
www.powerleveling2000.com is the professional website for
href="Wow'>http://www.powerleveling2000.com">Wow power leveling. wow power leveling, wow power leveling guide We have been in
wow power leveling service for over 3 years and made so many customers be our friends.
Professional wow powerleveling, fast, cheap and secure service. We power level your character
according to your special requirements with no extra charges or hidden fees. Help you get your
favor is our goal. And we are so happy that customers trust us because we upgrade your toons by
experience levelers only.mmo wow gold powerleveling Enjoy World of Warcraft, Enjoy our service of World of Warcraft power leveling.
Easy
If you want to be the most powerful in game, you should have the enough
href="WOW'>http://www.powerleveling2000.com/WowGold.aspx">WOW Gold then you can
buy the best weapons, equipment, etc. But Farming WOW Gold is very boring and waste a lot of time.
Now, you can Buy WOW Gold from us, just one minute, you will be rich in WOW. reply to this