Now Playing at Reason.tv: Saving Social Security—Episode One, Pimp My Walker

Worried about Social Security? Follow the adventures of Sonny, a young kid trying to retire (eventually) in style.

Produced by Lineplot, this is the first of five episodes.

Comments

Bingo | October 3, 2008, 3:48pm | #

Is that McCain?

xx | October 3, 2008, 3:52pm | #

It'd be funny if it wasn't so true. everyone loves a pyramid scheme

Drew | October 3, 2008, 3:54pm | #

No. Just no.

classwarrior | October 3, 2008, 4:05pm | #

Of course left unmentioned is these seniors contributed themselves to fund Social Security for those who preceeded them. It would also be helpful to remind people that not all SS benefits go to the elderly. It also provides disability coverage without prequalification (try getting that from the private sector) and survivors benefits as well. This makes for a less compelling diatribe, but it happens to be true. Now, wouldn't we all be better off if we could just entrust our entire retirement funding to Wall St.?

Matt | October 3, 2008, 4:06pm | #

Great way for the Democrats to keep the elderly voting for them. All social programs are, are a way of buying votes.

mediageek | October 3, 2008, 4:20pm | #

Now, wouldn't we all be better off if we could just entrust our entire retirement funding to Wall St.?

Anyone who relies on SS for retirement is fucking stupid. The market sucks right now, but given that I don't plan to retire for several decades, what the market is doing in the short term is ultimately immaterial.

Regardless, even if the stock market was a bad investment, there are always CD's and other basic money holding opportunities.

Sure, they may not pay a very good percentage, but then again, SS pays exactly 0% on any of the money that the government invests* on my behalf.


*spends

Marc | October 3, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Of course left unmentioned is these seniors contributed themselves to fund Social Security for those who preceeded them.

No kidding. Bless their souls for chipping in. But did they put in as much as they're getting back? Explain how that's possible given that the population grows over time, and the value of the dollar shrinks over time.

Eryk Boston, J.D. | October 3, 2008, 4:52pm | #

They seem to suggest the trust fund contains actual wealth. What it actually contains is a stack of IOUs the gov't has written to itself.

No Name Guy | October 3, 2008, 5:25pm | #

Hey Classwarrior @ 4:05

Last I checked, just because some schmuck got hazed some time ago doesn't justify them subsequently hazing the newbies to the club, team, etc. Didn't your mom ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right.

mediageek | October 3, 2008, 6:26pm | #

Marc, why do you hate old people?

Ray G | October 3, 2008, 9:33pm | #

It's meaningless to say who chipped in and who didn't.

This little clip perfectly catches what's wrong with SS, and other similar schemes.

That is, the govt is taking by force, that which rightfully belongs to one citizen, and redistributing it to someone else. Period.

That the elderly - as a demographic - are the least needy is true but beside the point.

That SS, and all other non-market supported financial mechanisms, are doomed to fail is also beside the point. (Is it failing? Yes. Do such schemes always crumble? Yes.)

When A and B get together and volunteer their money to help X, it's charity. When A and B forcibly take money from C to give to X, that's theft. C is of course, the famous Forgotten Man.

Famous Mortimer | October 4, 2008, 1:42am | #

Then move to another country.

That's not how our country functions.

Marginalized opponents haven't been able to remove S.S. because most people feel that letting the elderly suffer because their stocks failed, or that they didn't play Monopoly well enough throughout their life, are usually the attitudes of introverted sociopaths.

Social Darwinism is not hip, or intellectual, it's just a priggish result of uncultured, unintelligent money hounds who treat market theory like its the the word of God.

They're merely their opponents in reverse.

American society doesn't covet such attitudes about people. Therefore, it appears that the cost of living in America is not something you're able to tolerate.

S.S. isn't going anywhere.

Libertarians are a lot like bitter women who can only really see things in black and white.

Gray areas be damned.

Nick | October 4, 2008, 3:35am | #

Aren't cartoons supposed to be funny? The argument against SS is valid, buy why not just do it in an article. I hope I don't have to see any more of these episodes. Whoever made them should be embarrassed.

Bradford C. | October 4, 2008, 3:42am | #

You heard it from reason: FICA beats children.

Kevin | October 4, 2008, 5:25am | #

S.S. isn't going anywhere.

It's going bankrupt. Either that, or we're going to have 80% marginal tax rates. Do the math. Its all fun and games to call those pointing out the problems "sociopaths", but that doesn't hide the ugly truth that the program is unsustainable. You're just playing "kick the can" and screwing some poor sods down the road.

cvvj | October 4, 2008, 11:50am | #

S.S. can't solve the problem it was intended too because those in control of it:

1) Have never been held accountable for their actions.
2) Spent the 4.1 trillion contributed on what ever they wanted, but not S.S.

Fundamentally, as is demonstrated yearly by congress and the executive, politicians do not fear that what they do will get them in trouble, only that they will not be able to buy off, with legislation, those that can get the reallected.

Justen | October 5, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Oh noes, it's wealth redistribution! Someone, quick, turn on the Palin Signal!

Mike | October 5, 2008, 7:18pm | #

If SS is such a good program, let's give all the boys and girls their paychecks, without these taxes, and let them "donate" that 10% if they think it's in their best interest todo so. Why if you haven't worked / saved should you be permitted to retire on the government's dime? Why should you be entitled to 10,20,30 years of substitited existence, when others never get a single benefit check. How about letting people be personally responible for their own lives...

The Charters Of Dreams | October 6, 2008, 12:10am | #

"It also provides disability coverage without prequalification (try getting that from the private sector."

Exactly! The damn private sector can't do that 'cause they can't just borrow or print money like the government can! Stupid private sector.

"I vote Democrat because they give me free stuff and feel my pain:"

Obama, Fannie & Freddie: Lack of Oversight & Judgment

Rusty | October 6, 2008, 1:24pm | #

No kidding. Bless their souls for chipping in. But did they put in as much as they're getting back? Explain how that's possible given that the population grows over time, and the value of the dollar shrinks over time.

Gee...I can only hope to get some fraction of it back...considering how much I've paid in over the last few decades. And you're right...it won't be worth nearly as much as it was when I put it in there.

It's interesting to see how everyone loves to bash SS, but nobody has any plan to replace it, except to a) privatize it, which means in today's climate it'd be pretty much worthless, or else b) cling to the noble libertarian "every man for himself and to hell with everyone else" attitude.

deadjedi | October 6, 2008, 4:13pm | #

When (and why) did the simple concept of self-sufficiency become so distasteful to the American population at large? It's completely foreign to me. It would never occur to me for an instant to subsist off the hard work of others. Why do others find it so easy to subsist off mine?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for social programs to protect people who are unable (due to mental or physical disability) to do so on their own. These programs are wonderful and I would always support their existence.

But then there's everybody else....

Cookie Jar Cash | October 7, 2008, 7:25am | #

I just wonder what everyone here thinks the GOV., should do about this problem.

Sure those that have another 30-40 years to put into saving for the future, have many options. Us that are about to retire, HAVE saved for all those years, now "only expect" what was promised us when forced into this "SS program".

SS was meant to be "in addition" to savings, which is of personal choice. Now lets say I made $50K a year. 10% put into a "Cookie Jar" annually would have me sitting right now, after 30 years, $150K CASH! Invested even at a modest rate of 2.5%, I would be 20 times better off, then having to stick this into a "fund" that is going to give me 0%.

I would settle right now for a "BUY OUT", taking only the $$$ I have put into this fund, and the next 5-8 years I have left, could at least afford to EAT!!!

Hopefully these Frauditicians will BURN IN HELL, while I at least enjoy my Cat Food in retirement.