4 Reasons to be Pissed Off About Social Security and Medicare

These entitlement programs take money from the young and poor and give to the old and rich.

reason infographic

For more on "Generational Warfare" and what to do to about it, go here.

Sources:

Wealth

Debt

Poverty rate

Returns on Social Security

Comments

[Fist of Etiquette]

I consider this class war mongering. Or generational war mongering. You can't means test old people. It just isn't done.

[JW]

You can't means test old people.

It's mean. AMIRITE?

[Drake]

WTF does means testing have to do with it? They drain paychecks for decades, waste the money, then give old-folks a fucking allowance.

Stop taxing savings and let the market do the means test. The people with means can retire early and well. Others not so much.

[Brandon]

But that's not fair!

[exchef100]

Think of the childre......I mean....elderly!!

[Michael Price]

They're in their second childhood, it counts.

[booboobambam]

What young people ought to be pissed about is how stupid they were to vote for Obama and how stupid they are to vote for any Democrat and for any of the RINO's who are Democrats in disguise because they are the ones who have screwed and will continue to screw them by taking away their rights, their humanity, and confiscating more of the money they earn to pay for a more expansive and intrusive government.

[toolkien]

But they have been conditioned that Freedom is a government program. Of course, since FDR, all generations have been conditioned to believe this. It's just that the younger are going to get the shit end of the ponzi schemes, but the conditioning is too strong for them to realize that demanding MORE intervention only makes their situation worse, not better.

I've said it for years, there needs to be a balance sheet tax on everyone 55+ to pay for SS and Medicare; they are the ones who let the debts spiral out of control while banking the "savings". The boomers didn't pay as they went. There just MIGHT have been some fiscal responsibility if they had tried, but they just heaped more goodies onto the ponzi schemes methodology. The boomers have consumed all the wealth handed to them by their parents (out of the depression much less), used all of their own, mortgaged a generation, and are now poised to hold their tin cups out for more while holding the majority of the privately held assets.

The schemes should never have been implemented in the first place, and their were people of sound mind who warned against this inevitability, but it simply reinforces the inequity if the younger are fed to the older as the ponzi schemes begin to fail.

[mareline]

you really think one guy is responsible for everything that's wrong hes just another puppet who will be shot if he doesn't play along doesn't matter who you vote for democrats and republicans are the same they just give you an option to make you feel like you have a choice ive been voting libertarian or anything that is not one of those two but the sad thing is that they would probably be purchased as well.

[mareline]

don't get caught up in the sensationalism that public media feeds you they do it on purpose to distract you from reality and avoid the truth

[RickCaird]

I consider this to be a very stupid argument. Every old person had far fewer assets and far more debt when they were young. The whole idea has been to increase savings and reduce debt for retirement and then to pass on what was left.

[wareagle]

those are four pretty bad reasons. It's not like these older folks volunteered to make SS and Medicare payments; they were conscripted, the money was taken from their pay with a vague promise that some of it would be returned in the future. That many are self-sufficient without either program is more a knock on govt stupidity than an excuse to blame seniors.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Plus, they vote GOP. You will never see a Tea Party protest about high entitlement taxes.

[Longtorso, Johnny]

Hey Weigel. How's the acne?

[Restoras]

I bet he's using ProActiv. Totally fits with his progtardness.

[RickCaird]

Dumb. Comment. Most of us have been complaining about Social Security and Medicare since the 60'. But, we had no choice in the matter. Tell you what. Run down to your local Medicare office and tell them you don;t want to pay for Medicare any more and you won't take it when you are 65. Let me know how that works for you.

[Marshall Gill]

you won't take it when you are 65. Let me know how that works for you.

I am not a thief. If I were to decide to steal to support myself I would hold the gun in my own hand. How will it work out? I will retain my honor and provide for my own fucking retirement, while being robbed the whole time. Of course, the government stealing from me would never justify my stealing from future generations but I am not scum.

[Apatheist ?_??]

Well, that doesn't give them a right to conscript me to pay for it. Somebody is going to be left holding the bag, might as well be them.

[JW]

It's a welfare plan, not a retirement plan. Tough shit. Statist cunts are going to be cunts.

I say that as part of the latter cadre of 2030-ish retirees.

[VicRattlehead]

yeah if your retirement plan is to get old enough to collect SS you have bigger problems

[Batting1000]

Agreed, there are many reasons to be pissed off, these are not those reasons.

[RAHeinlein]

Correct, these people were conscripted and certainly shouldn't be penalized for savings or success. However, they will ultimately draw for more in SS benefits than they paid (particularly as individuals versus employers). Medicare is a no-brainer - those costs are entirely uncontrollable and no one was promised an ever-escalating level of healthcare (both via expenditure and actual care). At-minimum, COLA should be abolished IMMEDIATELY. As a small business owner, I will also submit that once self-employment taxes are added to the mix, current entrepreneurs are particularly penalized as they pay "both sides" of SS/Medicare and most will likely never see a dime.

[toolkien]

But if their "savings and success" has been, in the grand scheme, been a product of massive borrowings, passed onto future generations, then it's not really purely their "savings and success". It stands that there huge sums of money that were left in the hands of the boomer generation while chalking up a lien on Gen x, Y, and those dreaded millennials. Taking out a loan to be paid back by someone else to have your cake and eat it too isn't precisely "success and savings". The fact that one can't differentiate precisely who gained and who lost within the boomer generation is the sick, twisted result of socialism. But it stands that the boomers have borrowed a shit load of money, and banked a shit load of money. Programs were paid for and not funded fully with general taxes, fica taxes and borrowing were used instead. But when all taxes are added together, the boomers still didn't pay their way. And it shouldn't be up to the younger to pay for it.

[sasob]

Boomers, hell. What about the precious "greatest" generation? Those old farts have sucked plenty out of the system - and continue to do so.

[BenDFW]

that's why they are the greatest generation. They allowed government to expand and they loved it! It wasn't about the war it was about reelecting FDR over and over.

[booboobambam]

It wasn't government stupidity but the desire to expand the reach of government and convince the people that government exists to take care of everyone's needs. After the federal income tax, SS was the turning point where Socialism was replacing individuality with collectivism and the next step for an ever expanding federal government. That expansion led to Obamacare and in the future, the expansive government mandates and controls will reach into every aspect of life.

[Mark22]

Please stop misusing the term "socialism". Socialism is about public ownership of the means of production, a bad idea to be sure, but a different idea.

The welfare state (along with public education and the German "union" system) was created by conservatives like Bismarck in an attempt to ward off socialism and communism. It sort of succeeded: Germany got fascism instead.

[BenDFW]

From the National Socialist German Workers Party? Seems legit.

[Rich]

Future retirees will receive less than they pay in

Nuevo Dollars, though.

[Almanian!]

"See - you're going to give me these Silver Certificates, backed by precious metal. And we're going to give you, in return, these new bills, backed by...the 'full faith and credit of the United States of America'!

Cool, huh? Even Steven!"

[booboobambam]

Worthless money being printed by the boatloads now. A deficit that can never be eliminated. A never-ending expansion of government intrusion into our lives. A totally corrupt, wasteful, fraudulent, inefficient, ineffective federal bureaucracy taking away the very survival of this country. Are young people pissed about this?

[mareline]

yes thank you very much now i'm going to turn around and place this worthless money back into your bank so you may gain even more out of it.

[Ted S.]

For fuck's sake, what are you doing with an image of text?

[JW]

Leon is getting larger and Ted is getting angrier!

[gimmeasammich]

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

[Auric Demonocles]

I think they're trying to get out of the alt-text requirement.

Except that they still used (shitty) alt-text...

[jjjjj]

You have to have pictures if you want to get the attention of anyone under 30 now.

[vserve629]

Soundsl ike some serious busines to me dude.

http://www.WentAnon.tk

[Almanian!]

Yeah, you forgot 1a, the REAL reason I'm pissed:

1a) That these "programs" exist at all.

"yOu'll never get rid of them now - it's too late - it'll never happen"

Exactly why they shouldn't exist - cause once they do, "you can't ever get rid of them."

[Jason Keisling]

Indeed.

[MegaloMonocle]

Its a shame Our Masters don't respond to rational incentives.

Just as "hard to fire, hard to hire" is the unspoken rule in employment "hard to repeal, hard to pass" should be the rule in legislation. Instead, its a perverse incentive; they actually try to make laws hard to repeal.

[kinnath]

Reason 1) State coercion is evil

Reason 2) Redistribution of wealth is evil

'nuff said

[LynchPin1477]

Oh, good, I turn 65 in 2048. You me worried for a minute there.

[JW]

You're so fucked. Well, we all are.

[kinnath]

The system will collapse around 2030.

So someone retiring in 2048 has some time to take action in response to that collapse.

People retiring in 2024 (me) to 2030 (you) have no recourse when the government goes apeshit during the collapse.

[JW]

The system will collapse around 2030.

[Makes note to start buying guns, ammo and food.]

[gimmeasammich]

"Start?" I hope you just forgot the "more" before the word "buying."

[lap83]

Me too. Maybe by then we'll have the technology to keep remaining baby boomers alive and put them back to work. But we'll be retired because they got to be at the same age. It's only fair.

[CE]

I turn 65 in 2030. They've got me worried.

[CE]

Except by then, you'll need to be 67 or 70 or whatever, so 65 is just a number.

[JWatts]

67 is the standard retirement for post 1960 birth year. But it's not enough. The retirement age should be raised to somewhere between 70 and 72 to balance the numbers. And then should have an built in life expectancy increase every few years.

[Tony]

So the solution to the great injustice of old people tending to own houses more and have less debt is to make old people poorer and send many into abject poverty, while doing nothing for the younger generations.

[DanD]

Yes, Tony, we must "do something." Because surely if we stop taking money away from the younger generations, they will not know what to do with it. That's because they're stupid and need super-smart people like you to shelter and nudge them.

Why not just phase out social security--that means pay out to people what they've already put in. Hell, I would be a good sport and waive the tens thousands I've already put in if I could be exempted from further contributions-- and replace it with voluntary participation in that brilliant new MyRA program that everyone is just *so* excited to put their money into?

[LynchPin1477]

that means pay out to people what they've already put in

Pretty sure there isn't enough in the fund to do even that. As others have said, the government isn't holding on to your money for you.

But I'm with you on forgoing what I already put in if it means not having to contribute any more.

I remember being surprised, in my younger and more naive days, that I couldn't opt out of SS. That I would be forced to let the government "take care of me" never really crossed my mind until then. Ah, the innocence of youth.

[DanD]

Pretty sure there isn't enough in the fund to do even that.

Since when does that stop .gov? Roll those presses, baby!

[On The Random, Mandelbrot]

"I remember being surprised, in my younger and more naive days, that I couldn't opt out of SS. That I would be forced to let the government "take care of me" never really crossed my mind until then."

This is a very strong memory for me as well. Wait, what? You mean I don't get to keep what I earned? I remember also, asking my father in disbelief, "You've had to do this the whole time you worked too? How can you stand it?"

[VicRattlehead]

yeah he always said but what about the roadzzzzzzzzz
which i would say
"right, like no one would ever maintain the roads they use to ship products or get to work if the money for it wasn't stolen from people first"

[sasob]

Pretty sure there isn't enough in the fund to do even that.

Pass a special surtax on the retirement pensions of all public employees - especially politicians. Problem solved.

[LynchPin1477]

That older people are better off isn't unjust. What's unjust is the wealth transfer.

And when entitlement spending and the debt it is creating kicks off a fiscal crisis and swamps the few useful government services, I'll be sure to remember your assurance that entitlement reform wasn't going to do anything for me, anyway.

[Jason Keisling]

"That older people are better off isn't unjust. What's unjust is the wealth transfer."

Exactly.

[Tony]

But the richest country in the world ignoring mass poverty among old people is totally moral.

[MegaloMonocle]

Which is it, Tony? Old people are better off than young people, or old people are mired in mass poverty?

[VicRattlehead]

its called natural selection
our morality or qualms aren't considered by nature the only thing that matters is can the species survive and how does it survive
the current system creates survival by parasitic interaction
abolishing it will kill off the parasites no one likes while those who are loved will be taken care of by loved ones.

So do you think its morally justified to steal from working people to support those who do not?

[Tony]

do you think its morally justified to steal from working people to support those who do not?

Stealing is not an option. Stealing by definition is impermissible. Which adds a serious stench of question begging to your question.

It is morally justified to tax working people to pay for keeping the retired out of poverty. Far more so than the alternative.

[Brian]

Tony:

But the richest country in the world ignoring mass poverty among old people is totally moral.

There you go again. No need to read past that one, either.

[Jordan]

Reading comprehension fail.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Tony, why have today's young people take care of yesterday's young people, and today's young people will then be taken care of by tomorrow's young people, etc? Why not have people take responsibility to take care of themselves? The whole scheme reminds me of a crude saying about going around one's elbow to get to another part of one's anatomy.

[Tony]

It's just insurance. Because some people pay more in than they get out does not make insurance unjust. Social insurance is a scheme that works very well to keep old people out of poverty--and lots of old people would be in poverty if you got rid of these programs (and good luck to them getting health insurance in the private market). You can't unicorn away that reality.

And I am completely certain that the money saved by throwing a bunch of old people into starvation will not go to young poor people. If that were the plan it wouldn't have been on Republicans' to-do list for so many decades.

[sarcasmic]

It's just insurance.

Um, no. It's an unjust Ponzi scheme.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

Insurance need not be a government program, of course.

[Tony]

Ding ding. Why have a simple transfer program to keep old people out of poverty when you can pay extra for profits and middlemen for a crappier system that could change on a whim?

[Bo Cara Esq.]

If you're going to have government interference, it could be found in measures to make sure privately contracted programs don't change on a whim.

[Tony]

I prefer simplicity and low overhead. I'm not 100% sold on the libertarian idea of a basic income, but at first glance it looks like the best system of all. Get rid of the different programs and have one streamlined safety net.

[LynchPin1477]

I'm going to be picky on the semantics: I wouldn't describe a GMI as a libertarian idea. But it is an idea that I, as a libertarian, could live with. It's a distinction that probably only matters to the type of person that comments on Reason, but, well, here we are.

[mpercy]

I would not count a GMI as a Libertarian ideal at all, nor would I support it.

[MegaloMonocle]

I prefer simplicity and low overhead.

You can have simplicity and low overhead, or you can have a government program. Pick one.

Here's your simplicity:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/20/chapter-III

I especially like the note that there are 69 updates. Nothing says simplicity like constant change.

[Brandon]

I prefer simplicity and low overhead.

2013: $6,166,000,000. That's six billion, one hundred sixty six million dollars in overhead expenses for Social Security. SS fails in both simplicity and low overhead.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I prefer simplicity and low overhead.

Then you should prefer a cash-based medical payment system over government-provided medical insurance, since the latter is stuffed with bureaucrats and doctor-to-patient cuts out all the middlemen.

[mpercy]

Not that I'm in favor of it in the first place, but SS could have been structured as a more rational (non-Ponzi) government-run program and have fewer problems:

1. Establish the "forced savings" percentage and the "insurance cost" portions, e.g 15% forced savings and 2% insurance.
2. Deductions are placed in name&numbered; accounts. If you want to limit the investments here to US Treasuries, fine. But the accounts grow through both principle and interest/gains.
3. At retirement age, begin drawing down those accounts. Withdrawals are tax-free, but limited by annuity-like formula (e.g. no lump sum distributions).
4. If account holder dies before depleting the account, balance can be rolled over into beneficiaries own SS accounts.
5. If account is depleted before account holder dies, the insurance portion kicks in to provide a poverty-line equivalent income.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Low overhead? The gov represents low overhead. My god you are a fucking moron.

[LynchPin1477]

OH NO, PROFITS! RUN!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I know, is it not graspable that the existence of profits might create incentives for better management and investment that would benefit all involved?

[LynchPin1477]

/turns on stupid

C'mon now, Bo. Show me one instance of the profit motive resulting in better all-around outcomes and progress for society.

Oh, but you can't point to any example that took place in a country with any kind of government whatsoever, because I said so.

[Tony]

It doesn't work when you're talking about having a goal of universal access to something, like not being in 3rd-world poverty conditions (or healthcare or education or whatever). And I only say that because it never has. Endorse government subsidies or universal coverage requirements if you want, but I guarantee you it will cost more and won't be any more free of government.

[Brochettaward]

Social Security is efficient...now I've heard everything.

I'll settle for just not allowing the government to raid SS funds at this point. Whatever they collect is set aside and can't be touched.

The government hss been using SS to turn an evil PROFITZ since inception.

[Brandon]

I'll settle for just not allowing the government to raid SS funds at this point. Whatever they collect is set aside and can't be touched.

That can't work. The SS fund relies on the illusion of gains, which is why the government "borrows" from it in exchange for bonds. Would you really want the government to be the largest private investor on earth? The only alternatives are to allow the government to pick market winners and losers or to allow the government to pay interest from the general fund to the SS fund, which is just hiding a liability. SS cannot exist in any way that is actually safe or effective.

[Calvin Coolidge]

Save yourself! I'll stay behind and fend them off for as long as possible!

We'll meet up later at the bar - I'm buying the first round!

[Brian]

Tony:

Ding ding. Why have a simple transfer program to keep old people out of poverty when you can pay extra for profits and middlemen for a crappier system that could change on a whim?

Yeah, or a system in which you have personalized choices? I mean, choices! Ewww!

[JWatts]

Come on now. We all know that if you give people choice, then they might make the wrong ones.

/derp

[DanD]

Tony, do you not understand that these people had the money taken away from them from the day they started working, and that if they had instead saved (which was a great idea before the days of ZIRP) or invested that money, they would have far more than the paltry sums paid out by SS?

Let me answer that for you. You do not understand this. You think that these people from whom the money was forcibly extracted would not have done better for themselves with the confiscated funds. You believe that the awful return on these takings was a necessary benefit. And despite the fact that your beliefs--your fairy tale notions of reality--get ruthlessly shredded every time you drag your carcass back here for another beatdown, you still can't help but come back for more.

And that's why I love you, Tony.

[Tony]

Actually, you don't understand the purpose of a safety net. Sure, some could have gotten a better return on that money, but some would have done worse. Possibly the vast majority would do worse (people are bad at saving and investing, especially for retirement, because nobody knows exactly how long he'll live).

A safety net serves a separate purpose from anything else. It puts a floor on poverty. Social Security wasn't invented as a Marxist plot to enslave you all; there was a real social need to be addressed (old people in poverty.)

And it's not just for them, of course, but their children as well, who don't have to spend a huge chunk of their incomes, on a totally unpredictable basis, on their parents' upkeep. The market can still exist with a safety net. It's just a market in which more people can participate actively.

[sarcasmic]

(people are bad at saving and investing, especially for retirement, because nobody knows exactly how long he'll live).

Um, no. People are bad at saving and investing because they have been convinced that the government will take care of them, so they feel that they don't have to.

[Tony]

Well maybe all they need is a stern talking-to. That will somehow magically make people be able to predict the precise year of their death and evade all the random bad luck of life.

[LynchPin1477]

Better idea: Save enough to live until, say, 100. If you die before that, leave it to your kids or grandkids. Or your church. Or maybe to a charity you started that accepts donations of inheritance and uses it to take care of the small number of people who live to be older than 100.

[sarcasmic]

Better idea: Save enough to live until, say, 100. If you die before that, leave it to your kids or grandkids. Or your church. Or maybe to a charity you started that accepts donations of inheritance and uses it to take care of the small number of people who live to be older than 100.

Tony is not going to reproduce, and his church/charity is government.

[LynchPin1477]

Inflation hurts a hell of a lot, too.

[Brandon]

And what causes inflation?

[LynchPin1477]

people are bad at saving and investing, especially for retirement, because nobody knows exactly how long he'll live

That is not why people are bad at saving and investing for retirement.

[JEP]

The purpose of a safety net is to remove the consequences of bad decisions, and therefore remove the incentive to make good decisions. It's an attempt to change the natural order of cause and effect. You're letting a committee of ivory tower dipshits make the decisions for millions of people thereby centralizing power and creating single point failures. A single oversight, and the consequences affect millions of people - bubbles bursting. Sound familiar?

If SS was meant to address old people in poverty, why was the initial age at which you began collecting SS higher than the life span of the average American in the 1930s? IOW, more than half of Americans who contributed to SS wouldn't live long enough to draw from it - and that was from the beginning.

Also, since apparently the individual isn't smart enough to save of his own retirement, what exactly makes you think the government is any better? When has the government managed money well? You're going to give the government that has no budget ceiling and is 17 trillion in debt money to invest and trust that'll be waiting for you at 65?

If SS works so well, why do we have all these other retirement plans? 401(k), IRA, etc?

[mpercy]

See the Galveston plan for an example of a "safety-net" program that easily surpasses SS. It features personal accounts, limited "safe" investments, and a fall-back insurance component.

[Brian]

Tony:

(people are bad at saving and investing, especially for retirement, because nobody knows exactly how long he'll live).

Right, this is why life insurance, as an industry, can't function. Because no one knows how long someone will probably live.

How old did my great grandparents live? In there 80's. How long did my grandparents live? 80s-90s. Hmmmm. I can do some quick life expectancy peeks and see that... I'll probably live until I'm 70-90.

I wonder if I could use this information and engage in planning for the future, despite not knowing my exact age at death. Hmmmmmm.

[Brian]

Tony:

(people are bad at saving and investing, especially for retirement, because nobody knows exactly how long he'll live).

A safety net serves a separate purpose from anything else. It puts a floor on poverty. Social Security wasn't invented as a Marxist plot to enslave you all; there was a real social need to be addressed (old people in poverty.)

I think these two go together. In the sense that, perhaps the societal need that was being addressed was, hey, how can I give the government a few percent of my income, and get a positive return, given that I have no idea how to invest?

That kind of program will always find willing and eager participants, regardless of poverty.

When the taxes go up from 2% to 12%, and the return goes negative, not so much. That's a program that saves the elderly from poverty by generally making everyone poorer. One can't help but think there's a better way to go about that.

[LynchPin1477]

Are you really that poorly informed?

1) Insurance is something you only get when you need it. SS is paid out to retirees even if they have more than enough money to support themselves.

2) The more money you make in your lifetime, the more you get in SS benefits. The poor get less than the rich.

3) With insurance, the amount you are covered for depends on the premiums you pay, and are taken out of that pool (which includes money that others have paid). With SS, the money you paid in was already paid out to someone else. The money you're getting is coming from money someone else is paying in now.

You are wrong in so many objective ways.

[Tony]

SS is paid out to retirees even if they have more than enough money to support themselves.

The insurance (uncertainty) part is you have to live long enough. Not everyone does. And I resist turning SS into a poor-people-only program because jackals like you guys love to attack poor people programs on moral grounds (those icky poors).

I am all for making SS more progressive, and that is of course the way to make it solvent in perpetuity.

The money you're getting is coming from money someone else is paying in now.

How is this substantively different from insurance? You're dealing in moral minutia when your plan is to put a bunch of old people into abject poverty.

[sarcasmic]

because jackals like you guys love to attack poor people programs on moral grounds (those icky poors).

Um, no. We attack forced wealth transfer programs, regardless of who they support.

How is this substantively different from insurance?

Well, for one thing insurance companies can't lock you in a cage if you choose not to participate.

[LynchPin1477]

I'll try to explain this one more time, on the off chance that you genuinely don't understand.

A true retirement insurance system would look something like this: you decide on the amount of coverage you want; factors like life expectancy and desired retirement age are taken into account; the likelihood that you are going to claim the insurance is calculated from these factors**; you pay a premium based on that likelihood; others do the same, to create a pool large enough to cover all the expected payouts; you are contractually entitled to claim your insurance when the time comes.

In SS, you are not contributing to the pool that you will one day draw from. You are contributing to a pool that other people are continually taking money from right now. You're hoping that when it comes your turn to draw from the pool, that there are still enough people paying in to it that it remains solvent. And that is not going to be the case.

**The "risk" (if you want to call it that) of living into retirement is high enough that an insurance model probably doesn't make much sense.

[Zeb]

And I resist turning SS into a poor-people-only program because jackals like you guys love to attack poor people programs on moral grounds (those icky poors).

Uh, no. If anything we think much more highly of poor people. Most people are able and clever enough to take care of themselves. But if you make it easier to be poor, more people won't bother.

I'm not entirely opposed to a safety net. But it should be a safety net, not a welfare state. Make sure people don't starve or die of exposure. That's what a safety net is.

[Brian]

Tony:

The insurance (uncertainty) part is you have to live long enough.

It's not insurance. There is no risk calculation at all that goes into SS. Just because uncertainty is involved, doesn't make it insurance. Otherwise, gambling is insurance.

SS is a government program where they tax people and give out benefits. Period.

[Brian]

Tony:

And I resist turning SS into a poor-people-only program because jackals like you guys love to attack poor people programs on moral grounds (those icky poors).

Oh, bullshit. You resist turning into a poor-people-only program because you like it, and you like participating, and you like forcing others to participate in it on your behalf.

But, let's be serious: if you could really change it into a poor-person only program, knowing that everyone else would go along, would you? I doubt it.

[VicRattlehead]

right but the question is what greater purpose is served by prolonging the death of old people who are no longer producing?

[Brandon]

This is what the progressive agenda will eventually lead to. You've served your purpose to society, now you need to die. Fortunately, in a moral system, or in other words a libertarian one, individuals are not simply means to an end, so they can choose to end their lives when they will, or try to live as long as they can, and your "greater purpose" can go fuck itself.

[VicRattlehead]

hey if home boy has the cash to stay alive and enjoy the fruits of his labor im all for it.
I am saying that there is no point in me sacrificing my earned pay to prolong the lives of individuals whom i will never know or meet or serve a purpose to my life - that there is no purpose to keep paying out SS to people from the workers paychecks
so why dont you read what i wrote at its face value instead of assuming you know what i meant
because prolonging the death of an individual through the imposed poverty on others serves no fucking purpose. we fuck up our natural selection process and our genetics keeping the disabled, sick, and elderly alive artificially when they would naturally die off

[Brandon]

You don't seem to understand how natural selection works.

[VicRattlehead]

those who have the means to survive do, those who do not die
not much more to it

[Calidissident]

There's no way to fuck up natural selection, humans are a part of nature. By that logic, any use of medicine is fucking up natural selection since it's man-made.

[Arkansaustrian Economics]

Yeah, that's not what natural selection is.

[booboobambam]

Something called humanity. In the old days, human beings were thought to have dignity because they were creations of God and as creations of God, they had inalienable rights, one of which is the right to life.

[VicRattlehead]

Yep you have the right to life, if you choose to not support yourself, or god has not given you the ability to support yourself that is also part of your right to life.
your right to life does not give you the right to consume my resources unless i choose to freely give to you (which i would and in all honesty you would mistake me for a communist in my actions because i believe that freely giving away that which i have been blessed in excess of is part of my duty to God and makes me happier, ironically when the state imposes it on me they take more than i can give freely and reduce my ability to be charitable to those whom deserve my charity)

[sarcasmic]

is to make old people poorer

Because not giving is taking.

[Tony]

If your boss decided to cut your paycheck in half just because he felt like being a dick, would you say "Oh thank you massa, this was not my contracted payment in exchange for labor, it was all your money to freely give"? Or might you feel that semantic bullshit is quite beside the point?

[sarcasmic]

Because working in exchange for a paycheck is the same thing as the government taking a portion of someone else's paycheck and giving it to me. Yeah. Same thing.

[Tony]

I suppose your employer breaking your contract will be resolved by duel? Or do you get to take my money to pay for courts to ensure that you get what you need from life? Fucking mooch.

[sarcasmic]

Show me the contract that I agreed to that says I pay for old, rich peoples' retirement on the condition that when I'm old, younger people will be forced to pay for mine. Because I can't recall ever agreeing to it.

[Tony]

What other laws do you think you're entitled to personally sign off on or reject depending on your preference? Do I get to opt out of laws against theft because I never signed anything?

[sarcasmic]

Do I get to opt out of laws against theft because I never signed anything?

What are you talking about? You support theft! Is that a joke?

[Tony]

You seem to be asserting a right to opt out of laws that you don't like because you didn't sign anything agreeing to them. Just wondering if that goes for all of them.

[Jordan]

Of course. Everyone has a right - no, a duty - to opt out of unjust laws.

[VicRattlehead]

Laws that violate the natural rights of man will always be unjust and immoral.
it is a sovereign citizens duty to become civilly disobedient when a law unjustly violates his natural rights.

[Tony]

I gather you get to decide what the natural rights of man are but you aren't about to bravely go to jail for your principles.

[VicRattlehead]

because disobeying unjust laws means that i should turn myself in for processing by the state?
Natural rights of man are those that cannot be taken away from him or given to him by the state
that moral choice is in the eye of the beholder, thus individual responsibility

[VicRattlehead]

obviously he supports theft hes supporting it all over the comments of this article

[JEP]

Do I get to opt out of laws against theft because I never signed anything?

Yes, but you deal with the consequences.

[Brandon]

Tony descended into pure fallacy much faster than usual today. Leave him alone, he's done.

[Auric Demonocles]

I'd stop giving him my labor, which is mine to freely give. He doesn't owe me any future paychecks, just like a I don't owe him any future work.

[VicRattlehead]

DING DING DING we have a winner!

[Zeb]

Most people are employed at will, so the real response would be "I'm going to look for another job".

[Brian]

Tony:

If your boss decided to cut your paycheck in half just because he felt like being a dick, would you say "Oh thank you massa, this was not my contracted payment in exchange for labor, it was all your money to freely give"? Or might you feel that semantic bullshit is quite beside the point?

Personally, I'd just say "see you later" and go work for someone who wanted to pay me more.

I've done it a few times already, without bosses cutting my pay, so I'm not sure what the big deal would be.

[Auric Demonocles]

Stopping the artificial lowering of their paycheck by hundreds of dollars is "doing nothing for the younger generations"?

[MegaloMonocle]

So the solution to the great injustice of old people tending to own houses more and have less debt is to make old people poorer and send many into abject poverty, while doing nothing lightening the tax and debt burden for the younger generations.

Sounds fair enough to me.

[kinnath]

Give it up for the Tony & Bo Travelling Minstrel Show!

[Brandon]

Actually, Tony really makes me appreciate Bo. At least he argues in good faith. At worst he's a pedant.

[kinnath]

But it's the combination that is so thrilling. . . .

[Brandon]

Speaking of which, sort of, are we not doing troll-free Thursdays anymore?

[MJGreen]

Letting me keep 12% of my paycheck is not "nothing." It'd be enough to max out my Roth IRA, for one thing. What's left over could go to my student loans.

[Brian]

Tony:

So the solution to the great injustice of old people tending to own houses more and have less debt

There you go. No need to read past that...

[CE]

But you told us old people were eating catfood in the streets. Turns out they're richer than us.

[Mark22]

What "great injustice"? They are taking out much than they paid in. That's the injustice.

Not forcing the young people to subsidize wealthy old people through social security is doing a lot for the young people: it lets them actually save for their own retirement.

Note that a lot of these old people are, actually, the "one percenters" you hate so much.

[albo]

The conventional wisdom is that seniors are just a SS check away from eating dog food. And that teachers are poorly paid. And government can solve problems.

Conventional wisdom is bunk.

[Brandon]

To be fair, good teachers are poorly paid.

[Bo Cara Esq.]

How about one reason, that it exists? Both programs are coercive, statist measures from word one.

[Tevake]

They have been taking my money at the point of a gun for 30 years now. They damn well better pay me my SS regardless of how well I've done.

[Almanian!]

*shakes fist*

welcome

[sarcasmic]

Translation: Government has been making me pay for older peoples' retirement for 30 years now, so they damn well take money from the younger generation at the point of a gun to pay for my retirement!

[Bo Cara Esq.]

I do think if SS is ever stopped they should consider phasing it out and trying to give back what people were forced to pay in.

[sarcasmic]

It's gone. The only way they could pay anything back would be to take it from someone else.

[Mark22]

It's not gone at all, it's been paid out to various people and businesses, and a lot of it is recoverable fairly easily.

For example, why not simply make inheritance tax dependent on government benefits you received during your lifetime? If you took social security benefits, you have to pay them back when you die.

That's not as radical as it sounds; our "progressive friends" in Europe actually do that sort of thing.

[Christophe]

Only if they start means-testing it first to cut the outflows required. Otherwise it makes things even worse.

[CE]

When they arrested Madoff, they didn't go out and find new victims to make his last victims whole.

[Mark22]

No, but they took his own assets. Plenty of people who are receiving social security benefits own homes and have retirement savings; at the very least, we can recover the social security payouts when they die.

[Brandon]

I've only been paying in for 15 years, I'm willing to call it a sunk cost if I can stop now.

[CE]

I've been paying in for 30 years. I'll walk away too, if I don't have to pay anymore.

[JW]

Nick just wants to see "old people living in the street, digging through trash cans and eating dog food."

That was an actual statement made by some lefty in the 80's, in regards to Ronnie Rayguns, when the SS reform bill was being debated. I can only presume that with the advent of the Internet, it's only gotten much, much more criminally stupider.

[sarcasmic]

Not taking is giving and not giving is taking.

[The Other Kevin]

Having parents who are retired and collecting SS, I can see two sides of this.
1. They have a much bigger house, nicer cars, and travel to Europe and the Caribbean once a year. I am raising three kids, can afford none of this, and money is taken from my paycheck to support their lifestyle.
2. When I bring this up, my parents remind me that money was taken from their paychecks for years, and they were promised that they would have a monthly check when they retire.

I know there are other arguments involved (such as retirees collecting all they put in just a few years into retirement), but both sides do have points. However, people who take view #2 are a growing percent of the population, and are more likely to vote.

[sarcasmic]

My aunt spends her SS on veterinary bills for her dog and cat. When my pets get sick they die, because there's no way I'm spending several thousand dollars to maybe get them fixed up. But at least I'm paying payroll taxes so she can take hers to the vet.

[Homple]

I bet she wills her estate to her pets instead of her nephew, to add insult to injury.

[The Other Kevin]

This is why Tony's argument about SS being a "safety net" is total BS. If that's all it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But when you are spending your SS checks on pets and trips to Europe, it's not a safety net, nor is it insurance against poverty.

[Tony]

I prefer people be trusted to feed themselves without government poking around their private lives making sure they're spending safety net monies in socially approved ways. But I'm not an incredibly busybody like libertarians.

[Doghouse Reilly]

Where in TOK's comment did he advocate for the examination of SS recipients' spending habits? He just pointed out that people are getting money from the program that they don't need to keep themselves above the poverty line - which means the program is more like a hammock than a safety net.

[JPyrate]

Eat a bag of dicks Tony.

[VicRattlehead]

we know your not busy tony, you waste your time trying to convince LIBERTARIANS that giving up on freedoms and submitting to the all mighty will of the state is the best course of action.

your problem is you don't think we understand you, but we do, we're just to smart to drink the kool-aid

[sarcasmic]

But I'm not an incredibly busybody like libertarians.

You know it! Those busybody libertarians, wanting people to be free to act without asking permission and obeying orders! What is petty authority to do? Libertarians want to put them out of business! That's tyranny!

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I prefer people be trusted to feed themselves without government poking around their private lives making sure they're spending safety net monies in socially approved ways.

Which is a completely disingenuous position on your part, considering that your philosophy revolves around the idea that there's no problem increasing government control won't solve. Seems you want all of the benefits of a massive centralized state with none of the consequences, which is how children think. Not surprising, given this is the default emotional state of most progressives.

If your social security checks aren't needed to keep you out of poverty, you don't need it. And the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court decided decades ago that you aren't entitled to it anyway.

[CE]

SS is a welfare program you're forced to participate in, based on the outdated premise that some old people would be too proud to sign up for a welfare program.

[JW]

2. When I bring this up, my parents remind me that money was taken from their paychecks for years, and they were promised that they would have a monthly check when they retire.

As I noted above, tough shit. It's not a retirement plan.

The money's taken from them isn't invested, it's not liquid and it's not theirs. It was taken from them and given to someone else.

[robc]

But its also why I support a phase out, even if its just to start converting part of younger peoples payments into a mandatory retirement account. An SS-IRA if you will.

Put 5% into the SS-IRA, with 1.2% going to the other SS programs and the 1.45% into Medicare, and keep the employer match for funding of current retirees. Start with say, people born in 1996, and slowly backfund the accounts for people born earlier.

[robc]

insert SLDs all over the place.

[JW]

I've maintained that for years. Let me opt out and you can keep what you've taken. But, it's getting too late for me at this point.

Since they've confiscated 13% of my income since day one, my own retirement fund is very much lacking. I'll have something, but without SS to supplement it, even with the negative return I'll be getting from that,I'm fucked.

Thanks government for the crutches! I can walk again!

[Drax the Destroyer]

Yeah, but the younger generations are saddled with an ever-failing system. Just like how NASA produced some whizz-bang shit in its halcyon days, the first generation who got SS probably thought it was the best thing since murdering Japanese people.

The only way out is not to pay taxes, which, as Irwin Schiff knows, gives you an all expenses paid trip to PrisonRape Island.

[jmomls]

Killing does not equal murdering, dolt.

[lap83]

"That's great for you mom and dad. I won't get anything. But at least you got me to help pay for your Caribbean cruise."

[Homple]

By what conspiratorial mechanism do old people have more assets and less debt than young people? Could it be the socially destructive tricks of saving, investing, and paying off debt over a working lifetime?

[Drax the Destroyer]

It also helps that they got paid in less inflated funny money and college debt was nowhere near as crippling for them as it is for all the poor deluded young bastards these days.

Let's not get started on the fact they probably had better schools, despite all the flag worship and bible thumbing.

[Homple]

College debt is probably the biggest economic progress killer for young people. For many it's a bigger screwing than FICA and medicare taxes will ever be.

[Brandon]

And the left's answer is to continue to subsidize college debt.

[Brandon]

Although college remains voluntary while FICA and medicare do not.

[Zeb]

Let's not get started on the fact they probably had better schools

I think it is not so much that they had better schools, but better students. The fact that so many people today are expected to get some higher education probably has a lot to do with the dumbing down of a lot of it.

[Jordan]

Who said anything about a conspiracy? Who said they didn't earn their wealth? Nobody. Reading comprehension fail.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Perhaps--but you'd be a fool to not take the effects of inflation into account. Those compound functions are a bitch.

[creech]

SS should never have been made law but almost every attempt to reform it has failed. Our parents and grandparents laughed at Goldwater's measley proposals to change it in 1964. The best that libertarians could hope for is a gradual phase out over, say, one lifetime (75 years) which gives everyone time to prepare. Even this
scenario is highly unlikely because most voters believe in free stuff and that said free stuff will be paid for by someone else.

[MegaloMonocle]

The best that libertarians could hope for is a gradual phase out over, say, one lifetime (75 years) which gives everyone time to prepare.

The government and the economy will collapse long before then. Since SocSec can't be reformed by politics, it will be reformed by math.

[antisocial-ist]

Between the baby boomers retiring, lower population levels, and shrinking labor participation you are absolutely right. And I think the solvency predictions from the government are way too rosy.

[robc]

Tangentially related: Stanley's new worth calculator - take age/10*hh income,

So, if hypothetically, you have a income of 60k and are 44 years old, your net worth should be about 264k.

Just looking at the chart above, ugh, people suck at building wealth.

Other Stanley trick, take them number above and divide by 2. If you are below that you suck. Multiple it by 2. If you are above it you are awesome.

[robc]

s/new worth/net worth/

[Auric Demonocles]

And I assume the minus sign should be an equals sign?

[robc]

That was a dash.

[Zeb]

You need some parentheses in the formula as well.

[robc]

Nope. Division and multiplication are done at same level, left to right. No parens needed.

[Auric Demonocles]

According to this I suck, though I'm guessing there is an age when this starts to apply. Otherwise you basically immediately suck upon graduation (of whatever level of school you end at), and by about double your annual income.

I should be pretty close to that number when I hit 30.

[robc]

Most 22 year olds do suck and need to get their ass in gear building wealth.

What did you do with all the money you made working in the monocle polishing shop as a youth?

[Auric Demonocles]

It doesn't matter how good you are at building wealth when it starts out with that initial ~20 years built into the calculation. Let's assume you went to college without acquiring any debt. Upon graduation at 22 you get a job, and this formula says you should already have a net worth of 2.2 times your income. If you spent literally no money (and somehow avoided paying income taxes), you still wouldn't "catch up" until 24.5.

[robc]

You worked and saved money thru HS and college, right?

But yeah, it really kicks in at age 30. It gives someone out of college at 22 an 8 year target to hit.

[robc]

Imagine how hard it was for LeBron James to hit his target?

[robc]

The point being, rules of thumb are just that.

Stop nit-picking boundary conditions.

[CE]

You worked and saved money thru HS and college, right?

???? In high school, I blew it on girls. In college, I blew it on college.

[BenDFW]

Ok, so I looked into it. 30 years old. Income is around $45-$60K a year. (I haul fuel so it varies week to week). Total debt is at $85,000 total assets is $183,908 therefore my net worth is about $98,908. Do I suck?

[Mt low rider]

?You be trollin...

[Brandon]

What did you do with all the money you made working in the monocle polishing shop as a youth?

I was told the experience I gained would be invaluable!

[VicRattlehead]

Actually did work at my family electric shop as a kid, got paid and have done it ever since, even spending 6 years in the Navy.
As long as its family owned you can work as young as 12 which gives much more education and experience than public screwl ever could.

[kinnath]

So you do everything you're supposed to do. Pay down your debts and save the money you need. Where are you going to hide it when the state starts to confiscate "excess" savings to fund the SSI complex?

[robc]

bitcoin?

[kinnath]

The idea has already been floated in public forums by "top men". I consider it to be a very real and very dangerous threat.

So, we will definitely need to figure out how to have assets that aren't readily available for confiscation.

[JW]

It's going to happen. The only question is when.

[Jordan]

What is hh income? Should it be th (takehome)?

[kinnath]

house hold (my guess)

[robc]

this

[JW]

That makes it even worse. I was using only my income.

[JW]

Yeah, I'm way the fuck under, by about half.

I'm supposed to retire with an 85% of current income as a monthly payout. Not. Happening. Barring a dead, rich uncle.

[kinnath]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/.....an-be-done

Reagan had a record of scorning Social Security as an involuntary, quasi-socialistic example of government running amok. In a nationally televised 1964 speech for GOP candidate Barry Goldwater, he argued that Social Security should become a "voluntary" program.

Fifty fucking years we've known this was a problem.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Those are shitty reasons to get rid of SS. No one forced younger people to get themselves into astronomical levels of debt, and in a functional economy one would expect the worker with more experience and time invested in the workforce to have accumulated more assets, more savings, and consequently a lower poverty rate. I am not going to be collecting my SS check anytime soon (if ever), but wanting to get back a fraction of what the government stole from you is not a bad motivation. What's more, old people on SS have no reason to give up their checks out of generational guilt, and certainly not if their money will be frittered away on a different bullshit government program instead of being used to pay down the debt or give us a tax cut.

I would gladly see SS be cut along with the rest of government. Selectively cutting SS so that some dipshit can have their student loans forgiven and government officials have more money to play with? Not so much.

[Brochettaward]

I would gladly see SS be cut along with the rest of government. Selectively cutting SS so that some dipshit can have their student loans forgiven and government officials have more money to play with? Not so much.

Killing SS would actually take away money the government has to play with.

I also don't know what you are talking about with regards to student loan forgiveness which is a separate issue entirely. The point is that the younger people with debt shouldn't be paying for the old.

They are doing just that because the money they pay in is spent and has been for decades.

To justify the money stolen from you, you want the government to keep stealing from younger generations. Because of some warped sense of fairness.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

My point is that the "reasons" presented above are entirely a consequence of hard work over a period of years, to be expected in a functional economy. They are not reasons to be "pissed off" about SS; the fact that SS is redistributive is enough reason. Unless SS is eliminated as part of a general scheme to make government smaller and less costly to the taxpayer, those who benefit from it have no reason to support its elimination. I mention debt forgiveness because this is an issue that millenials strongly support, and could easily become an area where government spending is redirected towards -- I don't see this as preferable to what we have with SS.

Cut *everything*, or cut nothing -- eliminating SS in isolation while increasing government spending on everything else accomplishes nothing.

[JW]

the fact that SS is redistributive is enough reason.

They're not selling this to us. They're selling to the statist utilitarians who think that they're owed something from everyone else via their very special existence.

Hence, "I paid into the system!!" No, no you didn't.

[Brochettaward]

I'll settle for just not allowing the government to raid SS funds at this point. Whatever they collect is set aside and can't be touched.

The government hss been using SS to turn an evil PROFITZ since inception.

I'd love to see Tony answer this one. The government is currently taking money from the young, spending it on anything and everything it wants so there is no fund of actual money. To keep up payments, they take on debt with an evil interest rate.

You would have to be a complete moron to consider SS or any government entitlement program efficient let alone claim that they aren't in their own way making a profit off them.

[MegaloMonocle]

I'll settle for just not allowing the government to raid SS funds at this point.

Too late for that. SocSec is running a deficit, and is now consuming general funds, not contributing to general funds.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

Don't worry about anything. The old, rich people will die off soon and leave all of their monies to the young and poor, and then there will no longer be any need for Social Security and Medicare.

By all means, those entitlements are horrible! All of that money could be used to support an armed forces of increased size, so we can run all over the world and stick our collective noses up the assholes of all those countries out there and tell them what to do. And if they don't do it, we invade them.

So, we must get rid of those nasty programs such as Social Security and Medicare in order to promote peace through war.

The only alternative is to start a "War Corps" and send all of our young and poor people off to war, where they will be killed off, so they won't need Social Security anyway. This was done in Europe during World War I. Ha!

[MegaloMonocle]

I see Road got a fresh batch of glue to huff.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

MegaloMonocle,

That fresh batch of glue is now ready to shove up your asshole.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

That fresh batch of glue is now ready to shove up your asshole.

Still with the anal fixation, I see. Decided to take a break from watching your scat porn?

[LynchPin1477]

Who exactly are you trying to parody or criticize? I guess conservatives and Republicans? Fair enough. But it sort of looks like you're directing it at libertarians, which doesn't make much sense.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

LynchPin1477,

Let's just say that my comments were sarcastic. I don't see how anyone could have missed that. However, since most people posting on this site take everything literally, it is not hard to realize how they might have missed that.

On that note, I am NOT a Libertarian, and I don't have much use for today's Republicans or Democrats. I find it interesting that most articles/people blasting Social Security and Medicare rarely explain exactly why they are against it. Maybe they think old people should just die off more quickly.

[Jordan]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

[booboobambam]

With the way things are going, there isn't going to be many old or rich people who will leave anything to anyone. If Obamacare doesn't kill them, the Socialist/Progs will confiscate it to redistribute to themselves and their favorite domestic/foreign terrorist groups.

[sarcasmic]

Medicare already does this. Old people go into nursing homes, government pays for it, and then takes the house and retirement.

[On The Road To Mandalay]

I see you have been well brain washed.

[JPyrate]

Last post ???

[Brandon]

This doesn't sound quite like Tulpa anymore.

[VicRattlehead]

Because you know us isolationist libertarians love beating war drums with our non-aggression principal and all

If i was allowed to keep the 221.42 extra per week that i would have if the state and fed wasn't stealing it at gunpoint, i would be using that money to repair and update my home so that i could have an investment with a capital gain to myself. because frankly, i could give half a shit if your granny eats alpo so long as my family doesn't have to live paycheck to paycheck because a quarter of my pay is stolen every week at gunpoint

[sarcasmic]

Since the ACA was passed, my take home pay is down a hundred bucks a week. That fucking hurts.

[Mt low rider]

Give it a try, douchbag.

[Mt low rider]

The real idiot shows...fuck off, dolt.

[booboobambam]

You have to look at the context of what was going on at the time SS was implemented to understand what happened to it. It was right after the great depression and a Socialist president, FDR, had the support of most Americans. The claim was that SS would keep the elderly out of poverty after they retired and initially, it covered only retirees. At the time it was implemented and for quite a while after that, there were enough workers paying into the system to cover the benefits to retirees. But as time passed, the government does what it always does-adds more people to the beneficiary category. Spouses, children, students, former spouses, stepchildren, parents, and then the disabled and their spouses and children were incrementally added to the roles of beneficiaries while the number of workers paying into the system kept declining. There has never been the political will to change the rules of entitlement to properly assess the current reality and so the program cannot be sustained. As a forced "insurance" program, which isn't insurance at all in the sense one is guaranteed a payout at some future date (or the family or estate is)because with a government program, there is never a guarantee, it has always been more like a Ponzi scheme where those first in get a return but those down the line get screwed.

[Poppa Kilo]

We may be able to decide how it crashes.

The fact that it will crash has already been decided.

Math is a bitch.

[Suellington]

As a self employed person I pay 14% of every fuckin dollar I make into this bullshit ponzu scheme. As its true costs are hidden (most employed people never see that other 7 percent that their employers contribute) people don't even think about how much of their wealth this monstrosity is eating. We need to end withholding and the employer contribution and let everyone see exactly how much they are paying into this shite. Maybe then we 'd have more chance of ending it.

[MegaloMonocle]

Two of the fundamental reforms that I would pass if I was God-Emperor:

(1) No withholding of any taxes, with tax day occurring shortly before election day.

(2) All transfer/welfare programs run entirely on current tax revenue - no borrowing by, or from, these programs.

If people had to write check for these welfare programs right before they voted, I think we might have a shot at real reform.

[robc]

1. Move election day to first Tuesday in May.

2. Filing and checks still due on April 15th. Must be filed and paid to be eligible to vote.

I think that dramatically changes things.

[CE]

My reforms:

(1) No withholding of any taxes. Ever.

(2) All welfare programs run entirely on the current assets of the welfare agencies. Shut them down, wind them up, sell them off, and use the proceeds as a transition period so people can find jobs.

[icowrich]

What will be the expected average lifespan in 2030? Does meme #4 take this into account?

[icowrich]

What will be the expected average lifespan in 2030? Does meme #4 take this into account?

[CE]

If even one oldster in 9 can be prevented from eating Alpo, it'll all be worth it.

[James Anderson Merritt]

I have said this often during the last 30 years or so: Uncle Sam needs to make a deal with people paying into Social Security, which involves trading real estate for future benefits. The SS system needs to end, but it is very unfair to leave retirees or near-retirees hanging without the social safety net that they were promised, and in the name of which their money was taken, for their entire working lives. It's not THEIR fault that the system is so close to insolvency today. People just beginning their working lives, however, will surely be screwed by the looming default of Social Security, and/or massive cutbacks in benefits. My approach is to let (relative) youngsters quit paying in immediately, and sell government assets to make good on promises of benefits for the rest. Alternatively, those currently receiving benefits, or within 10 years or doing so, could be offered real estate from Uncle Sam's vast holdings, preferably in or near their own region of residence, in exchange for any future claim on the system. (concluded in reply msg)

[James Anderson Merritt]

(continued from above)

In my own case, I will be eligible for benefits within 5 years or so, was born in California, now live in the State, and have lived here for almost all my life. Uncle Sam owns nearly 50% of all the acreage in California! I wouldn't mind taking clear title to both surface and mineral rights for an acre or three or four, of California land that is currently in federal hands. I might even be persuaded to relocate to Oregon or Washington, especially if that meant more land were offered. In exchange, I would give up eligibility for all Social Security and Medicare benefits. Putting more land in private hands can't help but improve the economy, not to mention ameliorate or even completely prevent the looming, catastrophic damage to the nation's bottom line. In my mind, having land that nobody could take away from me, where I could make a home, establish a business, accommodate rental tenants for income, or even, someday, be laid to rest, would actually keep the promise to provide REAL social security.

[CE]

I wonder what millennials think of all this? Any poll data?

[steve baker]

Shhhhhhhh!

Screw them.

We elected Reagan, they chose Obama!

[Libertylover00]

This, in many ways is the perfect welfare system. Old, politically active voters will predate on the young and apathetic. When you get old you will love SS and medicare too.

[taker]

I've been young and I've been old. Young is better. While it is true I have more net worth today, I have less (and need less) income. I also have less time. I will gladly trade my money for your time.

Oh, and I retired early, but not by choice. Anybody want to hire and old IT guy? The problem is complex and defies simple choices.

[John Galt]

Will you fucking young, smart-assed whipper-snappers quit hating on us old people already??!!?? And while you're at it, get back to work. They blew every cent they stole from us buying their own reelections and such. My benefits are now resting squarely upon the fruits of your labors.

[REMant]

SS was made pay-go, because the elderly when it started in the Depression certainly didn't have more than younger folks. If you want to change to savings, you are going to have to do it slowly. But, of course, neither Keynesians nor monetarists want to increase savings.

[REMant]

But after a moment's reflection you might argue that considering the asset inflation current monetary policy produces, redistribution to the young might well be justified.

[brobbs]

Not a single one of those 'reasons' is sufficient justification for hating Social Security and Medicare.

How about instead:

1. Government spending and regulation make things really fucking expensive. Like health care.

2. Government promises reinforce laziness and discourage self-reliance and planning to that effect, by creating a fictional freedom from risk in the minds of citizens.

3. Government cannot and will not "invest" my money as competently or efficiently as I will. It routinely proves this, and the current bankruptcy of the SS trust fund is nothing short of rock solid proof.

4. Get your god damn hands off of the money that I earned. Save for your own retirement. Be ready to make difficult decisions in the event that you face an expensive health issue. Grow a pair, and stop pretending that you can live forever. And stop believing government when it implies the same.