3 Reasons To Abolish Social Security Now!
The old-age entitlement is unsustainable, unfair, and unnecessary. Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
HD DownloadYou know you're in deep, deep trouble when Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on anything—and that's especially true when it comes to insisting that nobody should ever cut "a single penny" from Social Security, the nation's income program for people over 65.
Here are three reasons why Social Security should be scrapped completely and replaced with a plan that will help the truly needy without impoverishing everyone else.
Social Security is unsustainable. Created in 1935, Social Security is paid for by a 12.4 percent payroll tax on income up to $160,200. Supporters pretend that Social Security is like a retirement plan, where your specific contributions build value over time. But the system is a Ponzi scheme, in which current beneficiaries are paid out of new money coming into the system. The problem is that when the program started paying out benefits in 1940, there were 160 workers per retiree, so a surplus built up. Today, there are just 2.8 workers per retiree.
In a decade, there won't be enough money coming into the system to cover the current level of benefits. By law, benefits will need to be cut by 20 percent or payroll taxes will need to be jacked up even more than they already are. In 2023, we'll be taxed on all income up to $160,200—a figure that's up from $113,700 a decade ago and $87,000 in 2003.
Social Security is unfair. The payroll tax hits younger, poorer workers harder than older and wealthier ones. A minimum-wage worker might pay virtually nothing in federal taxes, but will still be forced to fork over 12.4 percent of his or her compensation in payroll taxes.
It's a bad deal for retirees from an investment point of view: According to a 2016 Tax Foundation study, a worker retiring after making average wages could expect an annual payout of about $20,000. If that person had instead put just 10 percent of their annual earnings into an IRA, they could expect an annual retirement income of almost three times more.
And don't think the government actually owes you anything when you retire, regardless of how much you paid in. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no contractual or constitutional right to receive Social Security benefits.
Social Security is unnecessary. When Social Security was passed during the Great Depression, old age and poverty went hand in hand. Now the median net worth of households headed by someone over 65 is more than double that of households headed by someone half their age. Households headed by people 75 years or older had a median net worth of $254,800 and those headed by people between the ages of 65 and 74 came in at $266,400. For those between 35 and 44, the figure was just $91,300.
To be fair, part of the reason older Americans are relatively flush is because of Social Security and Medicare. But it's mostly because people are living and working longer and accruing more wealth so that old-age programs are less and less important to financial stability and well-being. There's simply no good reason to pay out universal benefits to millionaires like Biden and billionaires like Trump.
Rather than scheming about ways to save Social Security, politicians—and voters—should be talking about ways to wind it down as quickly as possible. Let people within a decade or so of retirement get benefits, but reduce and eliminate payroll taxes for the rest of us so we have more money to fund our own retirements.
The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care. But that doesn't require forcing all of us to pay into a system that is increasingly unsustainable, unfair, and unnecessary.
Photo: Gripas Yuri/ABACA/Newscom
- Video Editing and Audio Production: John Osterhoudt
- Additional Graphics: Danielle Thompson
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Abolish all security or just social security? Biden (D) has already sunset the border patrol efforts.
editor’s note - they fixed the title
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Abolish old age.
Nationalized healthcare FTW. /sarc
If you visit forums like Quora, there are loads of Europeans bragging about the great health care they receive at no cost to them. And how they could never imagine a for profit system like in the U.S. that has people dying in the streets for lack of health care. (Their claim. Not mine.)
In the meantime, the WSJ just put out an expose article that says that Britain's NHS is in dire straights. Something I think that Margaret Thatcher tried to address in her time actually. And, I've seen a few similar articles from other sources. Although never anything in the British press.
Which just goes to show, it's always the same. Once you start feeding people something "for free" and then the inevitable collapse begins, people will not believe, accept or act in ways that are anything short of an addict feeding his habit.
Government programs are designed to get people hooked like addicts. So they will stop thinking for themselves and worship at the feet of their rulers/masters.
Religious leaders learned this eons ago. Bow to your God and pay dues to me as your official go between.
Europeans can’t imagine wiping their own assess. Nor are they capable of. That’s what a long history of authoritarian indoctrination will do. Last time they were capable was in the pre Roman era. The few idiosyncratic outliers emigrated.
Our Government is a classic enabler and we are all codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
James Taranto's more-or-less daily column in the WSJ was one of my favorites, so it was nice to see a theme I've espoused before echoed in one of his offerings. To wit, I wrote this blog entry back in 2008...
Congress and the Administration have teamed up to cover the losses of these mortgage behemoths. They essentially took them over as government operations, kinda like Hugo Chavez did for many industries in Venezuela. Now, between the three of them (Fannie, Freddie, Ginnie), US taxpayers are on the hook for about half of the existing $12T in mortgage debt.
The student loan industry is a mirror image of the mortgage industry and is likely to face a similar explosion. Government creates a perverse incentive (usually in the name of diversity) to loan money to people who cannot pay it back. As a government supported program, private lenders are willing to take more and more risk, pocketing the profits and turning to the Government to cover to losses....
Our Government is a classic enabler and we are all codependent. An enabler is a person who by their actions make it easier for an addict to continue their self-destructive behavior by rescuing the addict. The codependent party exhibits behavior that controls, makes excuses for, pities, and takes other actions to perpetuate the obviously needy party's condition, because of their desire to be needed and fear of doing anything that would change the relationship.
Taranto had a similar take in 2013:
Oakley defines pathological altruism as "altruism in which attempts to promote the welfare of others instead result in unanticipated harm." A crucial qualification is that while the altruistic actor fails to anticipate the harm, "an external observer would conclude [that it] was reasonably foreseeable." Thus, she explains, if you offer to help a friend move, then accidentally break an expensive item, your altruism probably isn't pathological; whereas if your brother is addicted to painkillers and you help him obtain them, it is.
As the latter example suggests, the idea of "codependency" is a subset of pathological altruism. "Feelings of empathic caring . . . appear to lie at the core of . . . codependent behavior," Oakley notes. People in codependent relationships genuinely care for each other, but that empathy leads them to do destructive things.
Ostensibly well-meaning governmental policy promoted home ownership, a beneficial goal that stabilizes families and communities. The government-sponsored enterprises Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae allowed less-than-qualified individuals to receive housing loans and encouraged more-qualified borrowers to overextend themselves. Typical risk–reward considerations were marginalized because of implicit government support. The government used these agencies to promote social goals without acknowledging the risk or cost. When economic conditions faltered, many lost their homes or found themselves with properties worth far less than they originally had paid. Government policy then shifted . . . the cost of this "altruism" to the public, to pay off the too-big-to-fail banks then holding securitized subprime loans. . . . Altruistic intentions played a critical role in the development and unfolding of the housing bubble in the United States.
The same is true of the higher-education bubble. As we've argued, college degrees became increasingly necessary for entry-level professional jobs as the result of a well-intentioned Supreme Court decision that restricted employers from using IQ tests because of their "disparate impact" on minorities.
Plug in SS for college loans or mortgages and it all still is just as true.
Globally, countries are abandoning socialized medicine. Inferior service, unsustainable costs, long waits sometimes even leading to death while waiting to see a specialist - these are just a few of the reasons.
If you despise humanity, beg for socialized medicine.
Canadia is working on that.
https://twitter.com/JohnIsa69517391/status/1625704202226872320?t=Xr52Bj0IPEMZKDojKPNI2Q&s=19
Carol Siemon was the Soros bought prosecutor who gave Anthony McRae a misdemeanor for a gun violation. McRae should've been nailed with a felony, but Siemon played racial politics. Now, MSU has 3 dead students. This is Gov Whitmer's world, playing the race card for votes
Please share this with any of the comments sections in newspapers nationwide. I just came from one and, of course, there is all this call for gun banning "because this is the only country in the world where children are unsafe going to school". Along with, other countries don't have this slaughter because they have strict gun controls.
A lot of the comments are from foreigners and often are rife with insults to Americans for being so "stupidly gun obsessed".
You dumb fucking hillbilly. Imagine linking to THE ELECTION WIZARD! You can buy a new pillow too! God I miss actual libertarians and not culture war losers who have been brainwashed by other dumb hicks
Quim is big mad with your source, apparently.
I suppose that does make it easy to dodge the actual argument being offered.
https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1625683116130959361?t=vil3M8HJ7bKqK9ANhsO5uA&s=19
BREAKING: CBS News has learned that U.S. intelligence watched the Chinese spy balloon as it lifted off near China's south coast, meaning the U.S. military had been tracking it for nearly a week before it entered U.S. airspace.
Conspiracy Theorists’ “Nobody Knew” Narrative Deflated
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1625866064310554625?t=lQTprzX_eIqWCxVZX8woBQ&s=19
In case you missed it, there is now a "World Government Summit" taking place.
They aren't even trying to hide it anymore.
https://twitter.com/GonzaloLira1968/status/1625734116103671808?t=I0NVDIlQDEdleE7S7sVTfg&s=19
Sure, the report might have been retracted — but the FBI will continue to treat Catholics as radical extremists. They will do so at the behest of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Jewish anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-free speech, racially discriminatory NGO.
Reason is delighted with the open border. And all the squalor it creates, plus the skyrocketing violent crime around the border? A small price to pay for their borderless progtopia!
"The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care."
Which part of the Constitution provides for such an assertion?
+1
There is one potential flaw here: "If that person had instead put just 10 percent of their annual earnings into an IRA, they could expect an annual retirement income of almost three times more." As a friend of mine from Korea notes, if you look at the Korean market roughly from 2010 up to the pandemic, you got maybe 5-10% across the whole decade and, he notes, then take a look at Japan's market. Anyway, obviously our economy is different it doesn't mean we can assume we'll get 8 to 10% a year to infinity & beyond.
Yet, social security exists, and people, myself included, rely on it. I agree that a better system should be put into place -- one where people can put their money into the stock market instead of giving it to the government to piss away. But with the Biden economy and the government borrowing, printing money without ceasing, and spending like there's no tomorrow, it looks like no reform can work. We're screwed.
Thanks to the COVID jabs, very few of the vaccinated will be alive for very much longer (5 years tops), so this problem will be solved! Added bonus: most die quickly (heart attacks) without spending too much on healthcare. And don't think they didn't consider that when approving those jabs (that is, nobody in our government actually WANTS you to live, so they weren't too fussy about products that would kill you.). Remember they literally told you that "overpopulation" was a major crisis...and you took health advice from someone who thought your death would be a good thing? Gee, talk about dumb. If they have an economic incentive to kill you (and thanks to Social Security/Medicare they do0, then don't be surprised if they kill you! I mean look at history - Industrial Revolution created a whole lot of "excess" workers & WW1 solved that problem real fast. What do you think our "leaders" will do if you don't think they'll do what we're paying them to do?
And you plan for those who don't pay taxes and also don't fund their own retirement? Or raid their own account for things not related to retirement?
Assisted suicide?
Starvation on the streets?
Assisted suicide will be replaced with mandatory suicide very quickly.
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works cs-02 roughly 30 hours each week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Carousel.
If we are going the Carousel route at least give us the girls in those skimpy costumes.
You read to the end and they're all for welfare for those that don't pay in, presumably by taxing the rich or trillion dollar coins or some other progressive nonsense. Where funding would come from, no idea, but the debt is super important too but also tax less and keep spending...pick a message Reason, you cannot be all things progressive and sane at the same time.
FTFA
That's "no matter what" help. It should be provided freely and in kind to anybody, and in a way it can't be monetized. E.g. soup kitchens, free clinics, and overnight residential hotels.
Most people end up in that situation through disability, and in that case, they are covered by disability insurance.
We're a generous and charitable society. Non-government charity programs should be greatly preferred over any form of government dole. They do a much more efficient job.
Under current law, government is effectively required to provide these services. Providing them in the way I suggested would be both cheaper and more effective than what we do now.
"And you plan for those who don’t pay taxes and also don’t fund their own retirement? Or raid their own account for things not related to retirement?"
Borrowing from the Chilean SS system, a percentage of income is automatically put into ones personal, government-required retirement program (think IRA or Roth.) The Chilean govt also needs to approve the investment, so no "Enron."
Not perfect, but lot better than what we have now.
Seems one of those Bush villains made a serious push to offer market-based investment options for people a few decades ago.
The government might be able to say we don't have to pay you, even though you paid in (forced), and we will be able to say, I don't have to shoot you, but I was forced too. If they want a war, they might get what they want if they stop SS payments. I have other investments, so I can get by. But millions of others might not. Continue to piss us old folk off, and you will find out we still know how to fight.
Um, train them not to expect government support earlier in life.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I'm not so heartless as to force suicide or starvation on the streets. But there's no reason to provide people like that with comfy middle-class trappings either.
I'd be willing to go as far as a bed in a dormitory on a campus, perhaps a refurbished closed-down military base. Provide 3 solid, nutritious, but bland meals per day (a lot of rice and beans). Maybe a communal TV in a commons room.
3 Reasons why Social Security will never be abolished: It's popular, it's popular, and it's popular.
And extremely easily demagogued.
In a perfect world, there would be a strong movement to remove or significantly reform Social Security, but there is not. Perhaps one can be built from persuasion, but that is nowhere near happening anytime soon, and there is a lot of work to be done to make it happen.
Reform will never happen. People, once they receive a benefit, are loath to give it up. It's just human nature.
The entitlement mentality goes way beyond welfare recipients. I'm over 65 and getting a fat SS check as is my wife. We have by saving and investing over our lives, enough to live even better now than we did when we were working. We could do this without SS. As could most of the people we know.
But mention giving it up as part of reform to get it back to the welfare program for the aged with nothing and, those friends go nuts. "I paid into it. Why shouldn't I get it back." "If this is how it should be, then why did Ayn Rand collect SS?"
It can get near riotous to try and persuade them that, someone needs to take a stand.
The government might be able to say we don't have to pay you, even though you paid in (forced), and we will be able to say, I don't have to shoot you, but I was forced too. If they want a war, they might get what they want if they stop SS payments. I have other investments, so I can get by. But millions of others might not. Continue to piss us old folk off, and you will find out we still know how to fight.
If you raise regular taxes to fund an entitlement program for the elderly poor, people might complain but would likely comply. However, if you tell these same people that they are required to pay 12.4% of their income all of their working lives so that they will receive SS as a part of their retirement plan - and then renege on that promise - you will have a riot on your hands. And I don’t blame them.
Slavery is always popular to those holding the whip.
Jefferson Davis (D) concurs.
Of course it's popular, half the damned country is on it.
To be specific:
66 million Americans receive social security benefits every month. As of October 2022, the average Social Security benefit is $1,550.48 per month. The annual cost of Social Security is currently $1.2 trillion. There are 46.7 million American retirees who receive Social Security.
So there are 20 million recipients of SS who aren't "retirees". Honestly, I'm surprised the number is that low.
Some of that number is survivor benefits. Parent dies unexpectedly and leaves the other parent with mouths to feed.
I wonder if it includes the SSI/Disability numbers. I think that is where the abuse of benefits is more likely to happen. Especially with the new focus on anxiety and mental well being as a state of disability.
SSI is a separate program but you seem to be confusing it withSocial Security Disability which is included in the numbers
Higher Net worth does not equal income.
Agree. Per the author, the average net worth of people in the 65 - 74 age group is about $265K. Net worth includes home value, which most likely makes up most of that $265K. Without a consistent income stream (particularly considering the demise of private pensions), the average senior will be in the same shape as seniors were prior to SS being put into law. While it can be debated whether or not SS was a good idea in the first place, you can’t seriously believe that the average senior would be just fine without it. In the meantime, let’s just throw another $100B over to Ukraine in their futile war with Russia and another $500B to help rebuild it afterwards. No biggie.
No. And, I often rage against those who interchange wealth and income in their arguments for more takings.
However, a higher net worth generally generates more income than a smaller one.
My net worth is in the top 5% of the country according to the census information. And, it generates a very nice income for me to live out my years on. Short of ending up in an expensive, memory care facility, I'll never need to touch the capital.
That's what a higher net worth does.
If the bulk of your net worth is actively invested, yes, but if it’s in your house, not so much.
If you are in the top 5%, then your net worth is somewhere north of $1M. Assuming that it is $1M, maybe half of it is in your home ($500K) and half is in investments. If you follow the general rule of thumb, you should not withdraw more than 4% of your nest egg. Assuming your investment growth replaces this 4% every year plus inflation, that leaves you with only $20K of income every year. Not sure you would live very princely on that amount. Most people who have had decent incomes over their lifetime rely on getting another $20K - $30K from SS to have a reasonably comfortable retirement.
Oh great. Reason simps for more income redistribution. SS is already taxed
Up to 50% of benefits will be taxed once combined income equals or exceeds $25,000 for single tax filers or $32,000 for married joint tax filers
Up to 85% of benefits will be taxed once combined income equals or exceeds $34,000 for single tax filers or $44,000 for married joint tax filers.
Those numbers haven't changed since the Reagan years.
Medicare also charges a monthly premium and requires additional outside insurance.
.
Absolutely.
I love all the socialists claiming we need to get rid of all the evil medicare supplement and medicare advantage plans from corporations.
Just to repeat for those who missed the first lesson:
Medicare is terrible health insurance.
First, you pay premiums for decades with no coverage.
You pay a fixed premium regardless of health; no family discounts.
There are deductibles and co-pays.
For what it does cover, it only pays 80%.
There is no limit to annual out of pocket costs.
There is no limit to lifetime out of pocket costs.
There is no drug coverage.
There is no vision coverage.
There is no dental coverage.
You never paid Medicare premiums. You paid income taxes that help pay for the Medicare program. No different than paying taxes to pay for national defense. Those national defense taxes don’t give you the right to anything. If those Medicare taxes were actually premiums no one would be on Medicare that didn’t pay those premiums. But everyone over a certain age qualifies for Medicare.
Everyone “qualifies” for Medicare but Part A is only “free” if you’ve paid Medicare taxes for 10 years or more. Medicare Part A fees are as follows: If you have accrued fewer than 30 work credits, you pay the maximum monthly premium — $506 in 2023. If you have 30 to 39 credits, you pay less — $278 a month in 2023. If you continue working until you gain 40 credits, you will no longer pay these premiums.
People don’t seem to understand the SS is taxable income and Medicare isn’t free. I always chuckle when they say Medicare for All knowing Medicare isn’t free and requires supplemental insurance
Medicare didn’t require private insurance.
Shut your dirty god damn libertarian mouth! I’ll fight a civil war before I let you take my $20k/year retirement pension away!
You know how much I put in for that $20k/year retirement pension? A lot, god damnit!
If you are max earner, less than $20k. 12.4% of 160,000 is 19,865. With no growth or investment options for the money you put it, it really is a ponzi scheme.
I will work more years than I will retire.
Were you making the max income for all of this years though? Almost certainly not.
You probably work for 2 to 3 times as many years as you'll be retired, but many of those years you'll be making significantly less than the maximum SS income.
For example, my first 10 years of working probably covered my first 1 year of retirement. For my wife it was more like the first 15 years of working.
You're forgetting the 8% average annual rate of return you would be getting if the money were invested in a private retirement account.
Once you take that into account, Social Security is a massive ripoff of high income earners, and still a ripoff for low income earners.
The problem here is that that US government takes the money you pay in and immediately spends it so it can never earn a return. That's why the program is failing so badly.
There's no security in stocks. You're not factoring in the risk factor. Tax and spend is much less risky.
The 8% includes the increases and decreases. It is the average. It is taking risks into account.
No, I’m not forgetting any risk factor. If you hold my money and don’t give me the average return I could get in the stock market, you are stealing from me.
You forgot your employer matches your contribution
Unless you are self-employed or a contractor. Then you pay both halves.
You pay both halves in any case. Your employer factors his required matching SS contributions into his total costs of hiring you, whether it’s your salary or SS taxes or fringe benefits.
Funny how COVID thins the social security and Medicare rolls.
So, Covid was really a CIA plot to cut down on SS recipients in the U.S. to keep the system from failing and society from falling apart because of it?
We have to kill society to save it.
That’s nothing to sneeze at. At least the govt now has to cough up less benefits payments.
I have paid into the Social Security since the age of 12. That was 62 years ago. And I didn’t start receiving any of my money back until I turned 70. $20k for 62 years equals $1.24 million (plus accrued interest) I figure the government owes me. Further, at least half of my friends are dead, and never received a single dime in social security repayment checks (not benefits as you morons suggest). In addition, I also employed hundreds of people, and paid into their social security fund as well. I will never see any repayment of that money either.
I couldn’t agree more. Perhaps instead of cutting benefits of those who actually paid in over a long career, they should cut benefits for those who never paid in anything. Non-working spouses getting 1/2 of a working spouse’s benefit comes to mind, although there are certainly other examples.
We could start out by means testing. Don't give social security to those who dont' need it.
The reason being that a lot of people grew up and spent 65 years of their lives assuming that the government promises were true. Cutting them off cold turkey would be cruel. But we can still cut off seniors who don't need it.
I don't like social security any more than Nick does, but it took us most of a century to into this mess, we're not going to get out of it overnight.
Fuck you, who gets to decide what “ need “ is?
The same people who decide who 'needs' food stamps, disability payments, public housing, state-provided mental health or healthcare services.
So, the most libertarian governor in the country, Jared Polis.
So dreamy!
So, two people with similar lifetime incomes can lead vastly different lives - one may pinch pennies and not spend on luxury items throughout their career, resulting in a good nest egg for retirement income, while the other may blow their money gambling, traveling, eating at fancy restaurants, buying luxury cars, etc., and end up penniless at retirement. You believe the irresponsible spendaholic should be rewarded with a govt pension in retirement while the frugal person is punished for leading a responsible life?
Jared Polis is hardly libertarian, regardless of Reason's assessment. Check out the Independence Institute; it is a Colorado organization that bills itself as libertarian. They have plenty of articles detailing the specific actions of Mr. Polis that are not libertarian.
Fuck you, who are you to decide we end government overnight? Go live in your dream land and masturbate to Rothbard. In the meantime the massive and bloated ship of state won't turn on a time. If you refuse to even consider changing directions, you're not really interested in the destination at all. Now go get a towel.
Don’t give social security to those who don't need it.
That's mighty white of you, and there is nothing stopping you from sending your Social Security proceeds to the charity of your choice. Otherwise the idea is insipid. Take two California teachers. They earn the same over their lifetime, they have the same Social Security "contributions" withheld. One of them doesn't save a penny, leases a new car every 3 years, lives in a big house and spends a month every summer on vacation in Fiji. The other drives a beater, lives in a modest home, and vacations in Bakersfield, all the while putting their remaining discretionary income into their 403b. When they both hit 65, you believe it is moral to tell the one who made a lifetime of sacrifice that they get less because their neighbor needs it more? Guess how many people decide to stop stop deferring gratification under your plan.
You act like SS is a golden parachute that can sustain any lifestyle a retiree wants to live. The person to sacrificed to fund their own retirement and gets cut off SS will likely still be much more comfortable and secure in the golden years than the one who splurged all their life and now has to figure out how to live on 20k/yr that they aren't even guaranteed to receive.
Why do they even deserve the 20k if the other doesn't? Swillfredo is only saying you shouldn't pick winners if if that winning sucks.
You act like SS is a golden parachute that can sustain any lifestyle a retiree wants to live.
Get fucked you lying disingenuous asshat. He makes no claims as to how well either would live off of SS. He explicitly states that two people paying in equally and one being forbidden from drawing out is unequal and immoral as fuck.
Totally agree. As if this country needs any more perverse incentives.
I could really blow his proggie mind by suggesting we get rid of the contributions cap. Tax the working rich as well as the working poor. Flat tax of course, not progressive, but still SS is funded by a regressive tax.
The goal is not to punish the rich, or the poor, but to keep the system funded while we transition out of it. The goal is transition, not bankruptcy and chaos. Means testing and removing the tax cap is one place to start.
FAIL!
California Teachers have their own retirement plan. The STRS. And, they don't pay into nor collect from SS on their teaching earnings.
The game that used to be played though, was to work during all that time off they have, in the private world earning SS taxable wages. And then getting two benefits upon retirement. However, that's been nixed for a while now.
A good start for SS reform would be to eliminate the non-participation option for certain government employees AND elected officials. Ditto for their health care.
Initially they'll whine and cry like the babies they are. But, after a while, they'll be carrying the reform flag in front of all of us!
My dad and many of his teacher coworkers did work during the summers. Because even back then teaching wasn't a lucrative profession. You got paid for nine months of teaching.
And fun fact, private school teachers did exactly the same thing.
I come from a family of California teachers. They aren't on Social Security, they are on the sweetest deal ever, California state teachers retirement system.
Regardless, I remain amazed how proggies defend handing out entitlements to the wealthy. It's not about helping the needy at all, it's about getting everyone into a government system where they can be controlled.
Social Security ends up being about 20-30% of middle class retirement incomes. People don't "need" that in the sense that they don't starve without it. But they certainly need it if they want to retire without a sharply dropping standard of living.
And the reason they didn't save enough in order to maintain their standard of living is because Social Security took such a large bit of their paycheck AND promised to be always there for them.
I don't know. My and my wife's combined SS benefit is north of $41,000/year. Nothing to sneeze at. The COLAs are just amazing. Even though I know as an accountant by training that they are the death knell of unsustainability for ANY retirement plans.
Not nearly as good as the old, 3% @ 50 plans that CHP and many police and fire departments in California had up until not long ago. There were actual retirees making more than their average last three years pay by their late 50s or early 60s on those plans. Five or ten years before the rest of us plebes could even consider retirement.
Well, that’s about 30% of a retiree’s middle class income. Of course, if you make less it’s even more. I was being conservative in my assertion.
My point is that even if it is just 20%, it is substantial and you can’t just take it away and pretend it doesn’t matter.
So what you’re saying is that SS should be just another cash transfer welfare program. Just completely dispense with the notion that it is anything but welfare? So that anyone on SS should be completely aware that they're getting welfare?
It already is a transfer payment system. People who work pay for people who are retired. My goal is not to perpetuate that, but phase it out.
Another fuck you. Refund my SS contributions (including the employer share), and a modest 4% return, and then we can talk about another income or wealth redistribution scheme.
I find it more than a little...suspect...that a magazine that has regularly talked up the UBI is all of a sudden, in the last few months, making abolishing Social Security (a policy they know no Democrat will even entertain for a minute) their libertarian litmus test. Why, it's almost as if they're trying to put the Republicans in the position of opposing a wildly popular policy or face their claims of hypocrisy. That isn't to say Republicans can't be hypocrites. Sometimes they almost approach Reason staffer levels.
Because the Biden administration has a real confiscatory wealth tax 20percent over 100 million, and is poll testing its popularity. Research Jared Bernstein on the new wealth tax. Reason paychecks depend on the unpopularity or polling of that tax. They’re right about social security, although it’s just beating a dead horse at this point.
I’ll mention that they’ll use the 20 percent wealth tax, fossil fuel windfall tax, buyback tax, financial transaction, corporate tax, inheritance tax to prop up social security. City pensions are bankrupt also.
Bullshit. They will raise FICA taxes to prop up SS. Most likely option is first to remove the income cap, like they did for Medicare. All these other taxes you mention will be used to pay our expanding interest payments, as well as rewarding politically-connected companies.
They’re right about social security, although it’s just beating a dead horse at this point.
In principle, yes. In practical politics? There's a reason they call SS the third rail. And, yeah, the staffers here have been attacking Republicans for not pushing SS repeal. It would be like demanding the Democrats push for legalizing heroin and fentanyl, and if they don't, they really don't care about personal liberty. Of course, they aren't doing that.
If you won't abolish it, then they should at least rename it e.g. the 'Bernard Madoff Retirement Fund Act of 2023'.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do,
VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Perhaps Alec Baldwin could start filming Cocoon 3 where the script would call for hundreds of thousands of seniors as extras. This could help delay the tipping point.
Hopes are high in the lab developing covid23.
Cocoon 3: The Lockdown Coming soon to
theatersstreaming services in 2023.That is what the Wahun Virus was all about. 94% of the Covid deaths were seniors over age 65. No seniors = no Social Security payments = solvency. Get it????
Sieg heil! Das is simply no good reason to pay out das universal benefits to millionaires like Z Biden and billionaires like Z Trump, .......other than the fact that they paid into it, same as everyone else. Sieg heil!
Take the $20k/ year that goes to the 700 billionaires and devided it evenly among the 40 million SS recipients and everybody gets and exta $2.85/yr. SS is saved!
Fails to mention .gov will not end SS because the revenues go into the general fund. Any reform that stops the cash flow is a nonstarter in both parties.
Technically, the taxes are invested, by law, into extremely safe instruments, which happen to be defined in a way that eliminates everything but federal government bonds. It is the revenue from the bonds, not the social security taxes themselves, that are deposited into the general fund.
Deep in a cavern in West Virginia there is a filing cabinet with those bonds, waiting patiently for their redemption to pay out benefits.
tl:dr the money is laundered before the gov gets to spend it.
Right, the government borrows money from itself so that it can spend $1T it doesn't have today, for a hamburger it will gladly pay us on Tuesday.
Um, I think that cabinet is now in Biden's garage. And Hunter has been dipping into the bond supply.
And, many of the small minded, not so intelligent SS recipients I know, believe that if the feds had not "borrowed" those SS receipts the system would be secure. And these folks are seriously red!
Money for nothing...and your chicks for free.
SS bond redemptions are legal obligations that the government has to pay, just like with other govt. bond holders. The govt. can cut spending on anything they wish, if they are willing to pass a law to do so. But they cannot get out of repaying these bonds.
Calling it “bonds” and “redemption” just obfuscates that there is no investment, that this is just current taxes paying for current benefits.
The government could selectively cancel these bonds. But since they are not individually owned, they don’t have to, they can just adjust benefits as they like.
Good luck with social security abolishment. And good luck with the continuing destruction and divestment of U.S. energy and food independence.
This is a quick and easy way to lose elections badly without having to put in all the effort that normally goes into that. Nice.
Anything done to reform or eventually eliminate Social Security will need to be done very slowly and very incrementally. And you will still eventually end up with an entire generation of people who paid into this scheme without getting anything out of it, but it's the only way, because of how it started.
Slow changes in anything tax related are to be preferred. It's the whipsawing back and forth that creates havoc in our economy and for the companies and individuals affected by each change.
Most times a bad, but consistent tax program is better than a good but constantly changing one.
I posted this before, recently.
I calculated what account balances I would have had from investing the same yearly SSA deductions into accounts which blindly tracked the Dow Jones and S&P 500 indices, and then withdrawing 5% yearly. The Dow Jones and S&P 500 accounts would have been 2.15 and 4.37 times as high as the SSA payout, and most years, the indices gained more than 5%.
I also ran this with yearly gains starting in 1929 when the Great Depression started, and the two 5% withdrawals would have yielded 97% and 377% of the SSA pension. Note this was time-shifting just the older gains, not the older SSA pension.
I feel bad for the people who are relying on Social Security as a retirement plan, even though it's their own fault.
But I'm not planning on counting on it at all myself, because of the difference in returns you calculated, or similarly, what my father showed me, which had similar but somewhat higher results, figuring at a 7% average.
I don't put too much stock in these alternate realities where SS is "invested" in the stock market instead of the accounting fiction of government bonds
while not a complete sham, the 'wealth' contained in the stock market is also largely illusory thanks to years of government bubble pumping, and who is to say what the distorting consequences of funneling trillions more into it would have been.
I think the argument is that the money would be better off in the stock market than in the government's hands. Not that the government should take your money and invest in the stock market. Skip the taking part.
It's a lot less of a sham than Social Security.
Furthermore, you have a choice where to invest it. You don't have to invest it in the US stock market.
The whole post is retarded nonsense several layers deep.
Even without the ability to individualize portfolios:
First, bothsidesism, SS is an infinitely-deep tax sink/Ponzi scheme either way. One way, earns the program 5% more.
Second, he even admits that only *some* of the stock market's wealth is illusory. Which, again, putting SS in the market generates more "real wealth" than the current amount of Ponzi wealth it generates.
Third, he seems to misunderstand the distinction or lag between debts, deficits, payouts, and solvency and/or not understand how trusts work. That is, he seems to think that if the market/SS has a down year, payouts will drop and Congress will have to step in to help people rather than something more like reality where, after a decade or more of growth, in order for SS to shrink to the point of payout cuts you'd need a phenomenally protracted and widespread economic disaster, in which case, Congress would/should be stepping in anyway (if they weren't the cause).
And, again, all this is without individual portfolios.
There may be a case to be had that that amount of money in the market potentially provides the government even more undue leverage, but it's kinda hard to accurately conceive of the amount of leverage gained relative to an infinitely-deep tax sink/Ponzi scheme.
i think you're reading a bit too much into what i'm saying. Obviously yes, ANYTHING is better than the current SS "investments", which are literally just notes in a box that say "Our future selves, kids, and grand kids owe us money, we DGAF how they get it"
Perhaps i should have said it differently: If one agrees that a decade plus of bogus interest rates and quantitative easing has led to asset price inflation and malinvestment, then its reasonable to think that diverting even more money into the same funnels would only make that problem worse.
So when i say i don't put too much stock in those alternate realities, its because "slightly less bad retirement crisis" instead of just "retirement crisis" doesn't get my nips all that hard.
I don't think your reading enough into what you're saying. The only way you get a "slightly less bad retirement crisis" rather than a "retirement crisis" is if today's economy is only slightly better than the one 65 (or 67.5 or whatever) yrs. ago. That virtually *all* the growth in the market in the last 50+ yrs. was virtual. Otherwise, the retirement crisis gets ~5% better year over year. Absolutely, the idea that it would be 13,333% better (approximate DJIA change, 1935-today) today if we'd, however varyingly, privatized it in 1935 is magical thinking, but he doesn't make any such claims (97-377%).
If one agrees that a decade plus of bogus interest rates and quantitative easing has led to asset price inflation and malinvestment, then its reasonable to think that diverting even more money into the same funnels would only make that problem worse.
Unless the money being diverted into the funnels was largely responsible for bogus interest rates and QE to begin with. Then you're just cutting the overhead of The Fed and The Government out of the loop, which is/was the point. Yes, if the proposal were putting someone in the government in charge of retirement investing (which isn't necessarily the proposal) in the market is going to cause market distortion but, per your own point, we're already neck deep for several generations in that mountain of shit with SS and market investing separate.
My point is: if you don’t like what the US is doing, you can invest in more than a hundred other markets and many other instruments, including gold in a vault.
Whatever way you like you save, private investments let you do it. There is no other option even in the absence of any government mandated or regulation.
^Tell me you keep stacks of cash under your mattress without telling me you keep stacks of cash under your mattress.
This post is so backwards and stupid it's almost unbelievable. You're like some Frank Costanza-esque caricature shouting "It's too much steak! That's how they get you!" when you pay $8 for a steak and they bring you a 22 oz. lean, well-marbled, ribeye cooked to perfection.
Deliberately, nonsensically contrarian to the point of being legitimately disinformative.
SS would be better if it "invested" people's "contributions" into individual accounts, even if the only permissible investment was T-bills.
I certainly didn't. And, I advised all my clients not to as well.
I started drawing at age 62. Which angered my wife who I made wait until she was 65.
But, the bottom line is, that SS is like icing on the cake for us now.
There's simply no good reason to pay out universal benefits to millionaires like Biden and billionaires like Trump.
Whenever Reason is ridiculed as being pseudo-libertarian point to this kind of garbage. The reason to pay out the benefit to Biden, Trump, and Musk is the same reason to pay the rest of us, regardless of our net worth: Because we were compelled to participate in the fucking program and had a lifetime of wages docked. Whether the program can afford it is a separate conversation.
Oh, and a welfare-statist declarations like this is another example: The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care.
The federal government has neither the constitutional nor the moral authority to take the fruits of my labor and distribute them to anyone else. If you want to help Americans with their food, housing and healthcare, there are thousands of charities with that exact mission.
Well, no Biden so much. He ducked almost half a million dollars in payroll taxes from his book deal.
The second statement seems like a defense of unrealized gains or wealth taxes-hmmmm? All of a sudden federal taxes aren’t theft- just like that.
Reason may have been a libertarian magazine long ago but promotes socialism now.
EXACTLY!
I often wonder how the folks at Reason have gotten so far off the track.
Replace it with something that helps the needy of any age.
Well holy oleo Batman. I didn't know you could yodel
Maybe some pols/ideologues can shovel bullshit and pretend that helps the needy. Or maybe we can fund Wall St and they can sell shit on a shovel to 'help the needy'. Or maybe all you have to say is 'Qu'ils mangent de la brioche !'
Fucking useless crowd.
I've been saying this here for a long time. Once again, Reason is years behind the commenters.
Maybe Americans could go back to the way they lived before the government started subsidizing home ownership. As in multiple generations in the same home.
Haaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha! Never happen.
Multiple generation in a home! People buy home so big everyone can have their own rooms, nobody going to back to sharing space in a home.
Eliminate benefits for wealthy boomers, they've already milked the system dry.
The only thing worse than dishing out hatred about so called, economic inequality is dishing out intergenerational hatred.
Boomers paid in just like the greatest generation. In fact, later boomers paid in the most, since SS tax rates were last increased in 1983, just as they were starting their careers. So, hell no - boomers aren’t going to give up a damn thing.
Can you imagine multiple generations in the family home, passing their wealth down the line, instead of grandma's asset's being liquidated to pay the nursing home? It would be terrible for the economy. All those jobs lost.
Folks can do that now. Some do. A friend and his wife used the family’s Woodmizer to mill all their lumber and built their home. Limited amount of subs in the project. Believe that was house #4 using that mill. With the labor and lumber “free”, probably saved six figures per house.
People buying into a Madison Ave fed lifestyle trying to keep up with the Joneses may struggle.
Sure folks can. Or they can take advantage of government subsidizing home ownership while depending on Social Security. Things they pay for regardless of if they use them. And not have to live with mom. People respond to incentives.
Not having a mortgage payment at age 32 while owning the house you live in and built is a nice incentive. They heat with wood too.
That already isn't possible in much of the country, and it will likely become entirely impossible under EPA and other federal regulations.
Getting rid of the democrats would fix that.
While stick built homes continue going up, folks will continue to roll their own. Probably not in places with HOAs though.
Or places that already have all the trees cut down? Does your friend pour his own foundation too? Or did he go full log cabin with a dirt floor? He live in the wilderness, or he just stealing other peoples trees to heat his house? No building regulations in the wilderness I guess. Your buddy have electricity? Indoor plumbing with running water or just an outhouse? Your pal must have some skilz bro.
“Limited amount of subs on the project.”
I believe they poured the foundation (slab on grade) but paid to have the concrete hauled.
They did the plumbing and I believe the wiring. The local code officer checked and approved. There are building codes but not ones created to keep union labor busy. A well driller installed the well. He is skilled but more importantly, they had a positive desire to do it. It took about two years start to finish with the last months living there doing interior finish.
They felled trees on their land for the lumber. The trees will grow back. There are more here than 100 years ago.
In most places, you need permitting and need to meet tons of requirements, starting with energy efficiency.
There wasn’t much in permitting. That town does not require the lumber to be graded (those that do mill their own can hire a grader to inspect and grade).
My town has more but is typically hands off with stuff unless their are kids living there, then they tend to apply the local requirements present.
When I saw ‘Woodmizer’ I briefest imagined that as a character that got cut from ‘The Year Without a Santa Claus’.
I wonder what his song would hav been like?
The problem is that by the time Grandma is in a nursing home she really needs to be in a nursing home. There are limits to what a family can provide. If we are talking about food and shelter no problem. If we are talking nursing care then we have problems. If grandma has dementia then home care is unlikely.
I have no doubt that in the days before the government paid for nursing homes, it must have been quite common for families of limited means to just lock Grandma's bedroom door and wait a few days for the problem to be solved.
Grandma will not be down for breakfast.
No joke - grandma was helped along to her “great reward” more than many would like to think. A deep depression will cause many to do things they never believed they would, when there isn’t enough food to feed everyone in the home. Our “civilized” society is much, much more fragile than most realize.
And the democrats are determined to bring it all crashing down.
Most people in that state will naturally refuse food even if provided.
It takes special means to keep people in that state alive, and it is far from clear that that is the ethical choice. I wouldn’t want it for myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide
It happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
As does this practice.
Of course, a lot of that is prevented these days by abortion. Which may amount to the same thing.
As long as we can get the expected life span back down to 35, that would work well.
Yes. Attempting to set social policies via tax law is foolish, unproductive and feeds resentments anyway.
The MID is and was a social policy. It had nothing to do with income taxes.
Ditto for the various filing status's and the dependent deductions.
The writer acts like officials think that Social Security being unfair is a BAD thing! Anything that pits some Americans against other Americans is a GOOD thing for politicians. It keeps them in power, pretending to "protect" their constituents against those who would deprive them of their benefits.
There will always be people pitted against each other over this. The money isn't there. Period. You know? Something must change, and that will create all kinds of political animosity.
Yep. take it away and get ready for war.
You should have put quote marks are "their" as well.
It's like all the signs on the Valley farms I saw this weekend coming back from Fresno: "Stop dumping our water into the ocean".
This concept of "our" water is ridiculous on it's face. But many years of federal and state subsidized water to agriculture in the CA central valley has brought us to this point. These farmers are getting less and it's understandably painful. But, they think it's "theirs"? Really?
Entitlement mentality runs in both the left and the right.
Yes, but California needs more reservoirs.
Desalinization. You have a whole fucking ocean. Use it.
Or, fewer people.
Just saying......
Whenever I hear about California's water problems, I cannot help but to think of the sage advice of that classicist, Sam Kinison:
YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT!! NOTHING GROWS HERE! NOTHING'S GONNA GROW HERE! Come here, you see this? This is sand. You know what it's gonna be 100 years from now? IT'S GONNA BE SAND!! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! We have deserts in America, we just don't LIVE in them, assholes!"
Seriously, though, there is a ton of evidence that says that California was in an unusually wet period for the last 150 years or so. Mega-droughts lasting decades or even centuries have happened there a number of times in the last 1000 years. The current situation is basically just a reversion to the norm. Having large cities in California with water may soon be as unnatural as Las Vegas.
Under the unfair heading I would add that a poor person is likely to die sooner than a wealthier person and so receive less return on the money paid in. This would speak in favor of an individualized account that would return to the person money paid in plus earning as retirement income and balance as a death benefit. I am leery of asking people to do this by themselves and would rather they have mandatory payments by in a personal account allowing some level of personal management. It is easy for middle class and wealthy to set aside money, much harder for poor people who will simply find it too hard to set aside money.
While simply having a safety net for the poorest older person make sense, it will be an immediate target. The same crowd will be yelling socialism and welfare.
Your party will never do that. They will also de o I expect anyone who tries to suggest the slightest SS reforms. Look how your master lied about the GOP gutting SS at his SOTU babbling.
President Biden did not lie he has all the facts in many cases on paper or in videos. The Republicans are always talking about cutting SS, but like the Affordable Care Act they have no real plan for a replacement.
Republican need to have a plan that is well thought out and they get behind that plan. If they just talk, they will get called out and that is what happened at SOTU.
The "PLAN" is to OBEY the F'En Constitution treasonous F'Jobs.
Why have any plan? Where is it decreed that the Federal government is responsible for the personal finances of every citizen?
Even the much abused, general welfare clause says "general". Not each individual.
general welfare of..................................................................?
Its not "abused" its entirely violated by being taken out of context....
It was written to ensure the Union Government didn't go bankrupt.
They have had real plans: gradual transition to individual private accounts with mandatory contributions A win win, except for Democrats in Washington.
Can you cite the plan. I truly would like to look at it. It seems reasonable on face value, but is it thought out?
Maybe so. But, we all make our choices. And we all suffer the consequences.
As any old cowboy will tell you, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.".
Do we really suffer the consequences? It seems more like we privatize success and socialize failure. And we do that at all levels. So the person that makes bad decisions end up on welfare and the businessman that fails is bailed out by the government.
Maybe the [WE] foundation is the very problem.
Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don't own YOU, [WE] own you.
If it was that easy, everyone would be a businessman.
So, I should be held responsible for your poor choices?
No. That was my point.
But the way of thinking that you point out, the socialization of failure, is common and, what got us to this point.
If the evolution of mankind worked this way, we'd have been extinct long ago.
SS is in no small part, in its present form, a means to transfer wealth from poor black men to wealthier white women.
Socialism is..........
1) Unsustainable.
2) Unfair.
3) UN-necessary.
Its funny how many times people can loose their entire civil nation betting on odds of a successful armed-criminal career at 0:100s. "Why if only armed-robbery was made legal....", they keep insisting while playing completely ignorant to the fact that GUNS don't make SH*T....
One of the very points of the article.
There won't be enough workers to commit Armed-Theft on....
Maybe the bigger problem is the mass of society thinking this way.
But, but, but....what about the children? The elderly? The poor? The environment?
Don't you care about them?
;-0
I care enough not to pack Gov ----> GUNS when I'm claiming to 'help' them.
C'mon dude, you don't have to lie.
We know that y'all have never met a safety net program you liked.
safety net program armed with Gov-Guns = Armed theft (a crime).
Unless you're talking about VOLUNTARY programs; I highly doubt.
It is still mathematically the case that if SS is a bad investment for contributors, it’s a good deal for the government.
Clearly, if SS was a bad investment for contributors, when the government now finds itself in difficulties it’s not because SS cost too much, but because the government's management of the contributions was poor.
government’s management = buy more votes for more criminal actions against those 'icky' people.
Its a repeating history of the worst curses known to mankind.
There are no "contributors" to SS. There are "taxpayers".
Another reason that is often ignored is that if you are single with no dependents and you die before eligibility age all your “contributions” go to complete strangers. What’s worse a growing number of said strangers have paid little if anything into the system, but still get benefits that you paid for. I am still a few years from eligibility, yet if I die tomorrow everything I paid in over decades is (POOF) gone! Instead those of us who are dependent-less should be allowed to have private accounts and carry mandatory disability insurance instead. If we die early OUR money goes where WE deem, not bureaucrats. If the younger generations would realize this and stand up all of us would be freed of this scheme once and for all!
As I noted earlier the insurance nature of SS make it unfair to those who die earlier, before benefits or early in taking benefits. It is also the case that the poor tend to die earlier and so get less of the benefits. This is a good case for making reforms.
Gosh. Makes me wonder if its 'poor' decisions or a 'poor' gene at birth? Maybe I better get tested for the 'poor' gene so everyone can fund my next trip to disneyyy landddd...
Yes, if you are poor, there is nothing you can do about it. Doomed for life in a country filled with opportunity.
It is not poor genes or poor decision, but opportunity costs. The poor person likely has less access to health care. They have some but not the level of the middleclass and wealthy. Poor often have front line jobs. They cannot work from home during a pandemic. Saddly they are more like to have bad habits drinking too much and cigarettes. They may have less access to good food. More processed foods and less fresh fruits and vegetables (which cost more).
A poor person can be as health as a rich person, but there are more obstacles in their path.
So the non-poor were born with the ‘wealthy’ gene?
Sure hope I didn’t get that gene; everyone will DEMAND I be their slave.
Well that concern could be easily addressed by replacing social security with mandatory private retirement accounts.
Poor people already get disproportionately high payouts, btw
That's how annuities work. And SS is an annuity.
There is the investment factor and the actuarial factor. They're investments wrapped around life insurance.
As SS has a 0 investment factor, that should tell you something.
"And SS is an annuity."
That is an outright lie.
SS is not, never has been, in any way shape or form an annuity.
So many reasons to abolish fucking "Reason" now!
Here's an idea. Drug test all Social Security recipients. Because drug testing seniors sends a clear message to the children. "We're gonna fuck you any fucking way we fucking can for the rest of your fucking life!"
Yes, more fucking is needed.
"The federal government can and should continue to help older Americans—indeed, Americans of any age—who need assistance with food, housing, and health care. "
I'm unconvinced, if for no other reason they already fail to do so and waste tremendous amounts of money trying. Why not give the money to organizations/individuals with a track record of success?
"Why not give" is the problem; Gov-Guns must TAKE.
I was t-boned in an auto accident by a little old lady in 2001, broke my neck. C3-5 fused, it took me 2 years to gain back the use of my arms. I was not considered disabled during this. In 2014, I was hit while stopped on the highway at 55+ MPH, blew the disc above and below the fusion into my spinal cord. But the surgery is so dangerous, doctors told me to live with the pain, I was on disability for a month and a half and went back to work full time, in severe pain all the time. Now in 2023, I have learned I have Leukemia, blood cancer with an incurable strain and check about disability, but told, I will never get it, takes too long to get and with immigrants pouring in for request, the SS system is broke / bankrupt. "So don't even think to try to get it,. people in comas in the hospital trying to get funds they will never see" from the social security admin I talked to. Jeff Bassett Toledo OH
It's all very difficult. The good thing about an unfunded pay-as-you- go scheme is that the first generation to get Social Security got it for free. If Social Security is abolished, and the working age population is required to save up for their retirement, the current recipients of Social Security would get what they get now, or less for that matter, only through borrowing, leaving everybody as well off as before. 🙁
Current benefit rates cannot be politically sustained on account of the demographic. You'll see what happens in 10-15 years.
Just as the largest group of folk (those born in 1957) are getting ready to begin collecting social security, now the government wants to eliminate it. Go to hell.
Didn’t you watch the video. Your “collection” was already STOLEN. The Supreme Court has rules it was just a ‘government’ tax.
The writing was on the wall with the ‘SOCIAL’ word of Security FDR sold the USA (more like conquered it) and P.S. your earnings are worthless now because of the ‘fiat’ Federal Reserve pitched by Woodrow Wilson also a Democrat which already directly led to the Great Depression that gave Democrat FDR **excuses** to pitch more horrible ‘SOCIALIST’ sh*t.
Democrats way; Digging your way out the china way — just keep digging.
NOTE: You cannot ask those put in charge of ensuring Justice to ensure Justice on themselves. That's exactly why their THEFT isn't prosecuted.
We are waiting, and we are patient. But take the SS away, and there will be bloodshed. Guaranteed.
Like when slavery was ended?
Because lets get real. Enslaving the working is exactly how SS is being implemented.
It was never “your money” once it was paid as SS taxes. It was never “sitting in an interest-bearing account”.
It was always a pay-as-you-go system, whereby the taxes collected from today’s workers was used to pay benefits to today’s retirees. They could have just raised taxes at paid SS out of the general fund and it would have been the same. But they wanted to create the illusion that you somehow had an account with “your money” sitting in it. And you people bought it hook, line, and sinker. It was setup from Day 1 as a pyramid scheme, and it will surely collapse under its own weight.
Even the notion of a “lockbox” was a hoax. The government had generally been keeping SS running at a level keel with little surplus for decades — basically pay-as-you-go, not much more than a small reserve to cover revenue downturns like recessions. By law, those reserve could only be invested in one thing: T-Bills. That is, the SS reserves would be loaned to the government to spend, and the SS Administration would get T-Bills…U.S. Bonds…to hold in return. T-Bills do bear interest, but that interest is a generalized concept representing a promise from the Government to pay you back more than they borrowed from you…paid out of future taxes collected from someone else.
They don’t reall ytry to hide it, it says it right there in SS documents–even on their website–“Because the surplus OASDI funds are essentially loaned to the rest of the government, a full understanding of the effects of OASDI financing requires consideration of its effects on the Treasury’s general account cash flows.”
But in the early 1980’s, facing a wave of retiring baby boomers and looming deficit, Congress increased the SS tax rate and income levels to create an intentional surplus, and a large one at that. Large enough to hopefully cover the expenses of the baby boomers. Again, from SS documents “…trust fund total income exceeding trust fund expenditures from 1984 through 2019, generating annual surpluses. Beginning in 2020, total income is projected to be less than expenditures, generating annual deficits.” Funny, they call deficits “negative surpluses” in that same document.
In 1940, there were 160 workers per retiree. In 1950, there were 16.5. In 1960, there were 5.1. In 1970, there were 3.7. In 1980, there were 3.2. In 1990 and 2000, steady at 3.4. By 2010, the number has dropped to 2.9, and by 2013 (last year for which SS publishes numbers) down to 2.8.
In 1940, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 53.9 for men and 60.6 for women. There were 9M people over the age of 65. In 1950, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 56.2 for men and 65.5 for women. There were 12.7M people over the age of 65. In 1960, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 60.1 for men and 71.3 for women. There were 17.2M people over the age of 65. In 1970, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 63.7 for men and 76.9 for women. There were 20.9M people over the age of 65. In 1980, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 67.8 for men and 80.9 for women. There were 26.1M people over the age of 65. In 1990, SS age was 65, but life expectancy was 72.3 for men and 83.6 for women. There were 31.9M people over the age of 65.
When SS was created, few people were expected to ever actually live to receive it. Fewer still were expected to receive it for very long. It was never meant as a “retirement fund”. It was a small hedge against abject poverty in old age.
[dug up from older emails. some numbers may be obsolete]
We did not vote for this. It was forced upon the public without any input from us. Go ahead. Stop the payments. Then prepare to shed blood. What the fuck do you think millions of boomers are going to do? Sit idly by, and say, oh well?
I find it humorous that those who supposedly are too old to work anymore find it so easy to "shed blood" for their *entitlements* (to commit armed-robbery).
Oh; So that's how the poor and helpless souls make a living now huh?
Old folks, please realize that "your money" was long ago spent to pay benefits to someone 20 years older than you. Your SS check, when it comes, is being paid for by 2.5 or so people who are still working.
So go find three younger people and thank them for your check.
Three or four of you old people can get together and find a 95-year old and ask them for your money back.
Your reaction tells me that you fell for the gambit hook, line, and sinker. You believed you were being forced to "invest" your "contributions" into a "retirement account" and that you'd get "paid back" later. When, in reality, it was always "your income and payroll taxes are paying for roads, bombs, army/navy/AF/Marines/CG, welfare of all kinds, including old-people welfare (SS)." Sure, there was a notional connection between payroll taxes and SS, but never as an investment or an account with your name on it. Your payroll taxes ALWAYS were immediately used to pay for someone who was receiving SS benefits; your only hope was that the whole big Ponzi scheme didn't collapse and that there would be someone willing to keep paying payroll taxes to fund *your* SS benefits.
Don't get me wrong, I've been forced to pay into the slush fund for 4+ decades, and for about half that I've been paying the maximum amount required. I'm close to being one the receiving side of the equation and will be pretty pissed, too, to not recoup some of the money I was forced to give to old people instead of preparing for my own financial security (which I have been doing too).
But at least I recognize the reality of the situation. I knew how it worked ALL ALONG, not like a bunch of the cretins who still believe it's "their money" as if it's sitting in a 401k with their name on it.
I’ve been paying into it for 45 years. ‘No way in hell I’m going to support eliminating it now.
A few years ago, the GAO reported that more than 50% of payments are made to people who never paid into the system. How about we stop making payments to people who haven't paid into the system?
You know the stat that 46% (or something close to that, as it varies from year to year) pay "zero or negative income taxes". Negative taxes because they can claim refundable credits like child tax credit and EITC.
So then realize that 20-25% of people ALSO pay "zero or negative sum of income and payroll taxes". So the EITC is *designed* to offset the mean old SS payroll taxes. Sometimes, between the EITC and all the other credits, people are refunded more than than they paid in income taxes AND payroll taxes. 20-25% fall into this category.
Technically, they paid into the system, with one hand, but then the government gave them back their money with the other hand AND said that because they paid in, they will be able to get the payout later.
That's the legal part. There's a lot of criminal (some are illegal immigrants who are 'just' using stolen identities) fraud getting SS payouts. "The SSA estimates that it made about $8.3 billion worth of improper payments during the 2020 fiscal year. Social Security-related fraud can also take other forms, such as identity theft using stolen Social Security numbers and scams involving bogus phone calls and emails purporting to be from the SSA. Collectively, these frauds cost the U.S. government and individual taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars every year."
So how do you compensate people that were unfairly taxed for 40-50 years, plus their employer who had to match their contributions and said that was part of their wage package when you end Social Security? These people had a hard time saving for retirement as the government stole all that money.
I would gladly take the 50 years of Social Security I paid in, plus my employers contribution in my name, plus a measly 4% interest annually (which is low, much of that time interest rates were over 10%) compounded over the 50 years I paid in. Then you can end my Social Security.
Now a lot of recipients never paid in much or at all, farmers, teacher, survivors and people that got disability. I doubt the would be happy with my plan.
Still the biggest problem is the government "borrowed" all that money and left worthless IOU's instead of investing that money for future payments. It is not like they didn't know the Baby Boom happened, it is not like they didn't know families were getting smaller and it is not like they didn't know they turned it into a disability and survivor program too. Yet for the last 70 years they refused to deal with the problem. Now they want to correct their mistake on the backs of the recently retired and soon to retire.
SS funds were never invested per se. There were times when any excess was invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. Those government IOUs had no bearing on this choice in the plan administration. It was never set up to be invested like regular pension plans.
This is why it can legitimately be called a Ponzi scheme.
"that were unfairly taxed for 40-50 years"
How does that not apply to ALL taxes? What about all the non-FICA taxes I paid that were pumped into other welfare scams, I mean, programs? What about all the gasoline taxes paid that are not used for roads?
The rules for SS and how it worked were always the same: you work, you pay payroll taxes, the government uses taxes to pay cash-transfer welfare payments to old people. With luck, when you're old, there will still be people working and paying payroll taxes to fund cash-transfer welfare payment to you, too.
People willed themselves into believing that SS was a retirement account. As if it was not just paying taxes to fund cash-transfer welfare payments to old people.
While I do consider myself to have some Libertarian leanings, it’s articles like this which convince me that I can never be a full blown adherent. While I’m sure the authors degrees in Theatre and English Literature respectively more than qualifies them to comment on old age finances, I doubt they have yet to get any actual experience in that field. Anyone who thinks owning a house that may be worth a mere pittance of ~266k is going to sustain one for long has obviously not yet received an old age medical bill which can easily exceed that for a stay in the hospital. I’m sure all those millions of young people who have disappeared from the workforce since the gubment made $4.5 trillion appear out of thin air for “covid relief” are really worried sick about the future of SS. As for me, that new set of $1400 “covid relief” tires looked great for a while, but I’m pretty sure I could have managed a set on my own.
$10+ trillion in printed money for the foolishness covid relief for all, not just the needy and useless green energy, but not one cent for the retired that payed their whole lives for their great grandparents, grandparents and parents retirement.
More importantly, very high rates of inflation. A known result of putting more currency into an economy when there is no parallel increase in productivity.
no parallel increase in productivity.
That's a gross understatement. The payments were going out at a time when about a third of the economy was intentionally shut down.
Blame HOA and Gov-Healthcare.
Digging to China.
40 years ago, as I was leaving HS, I was more than willing, in fact advocating for the end of SS. I was willing to never get a dime if the government would quit taking my money. I was even willing to do that at age 30, when I had paid a good deal into the scheme, but now that I am nearing 60 and have been funding the system for 45 years, I want my money.
Socialism is………. 2) Unfair.
https://reason.com/video/2023/02/15/3-reasons-to-abolish-security-now/?comments=true#comment-9927501
40 years ago. I was just getting into my post college career.
I said it then and, still do: I was willing to continue to pay in to cover the obligations already created and never receive a dime myself, if we'd just pick a cohort where, SS would no longer be available. Thus, phase the program out.
I'd go without SS today, if they'd just pick a sunset date and get on with putting this Ponzi scheme out of its misery.
Thirty. twenty, ten years ago, I was willing and advocating to be allowed to forfeit all future benefits and past payments just to be allowed to not have to continue to fund SS.
Fuck you on scheming how to tell me I don't get promised SS benefits, especially if you claim I don't "need" them.
If Uncle Sam runs out of cash, I will take acres of federal land in lieu of payment. I have my eye on some parcels on the rim of the Grand Canyon.
Space-based futurist, realist, sentient (one who reasons).
Unfuck-you. Govt. Ponzi schemes are not rational, neither is govt., neither are those who support forcing their way on all.
Humorously the very notion of “federal land” beyond D.C. or given to it by the State for military purposes is nothing but 100% national communism in action.
And a vile VIOLATION of the US Constitution.
The Supreme Law is on your side.
This article is based on several lies of omission, which Orwell called the most powerful lies.
1. The 160 workers per retiree in 1940 is misleading because payments had only begun in 1937 and by 1940, veryi few had earned SS benefits. This was never expected to be the normal ration, which by 1945 was 42/1 ratio and by 1970, 3.7/1
Today we are at 2.9%.
2 The second critical lie of omission is to ignore the fact that in 1945, the payroll tax was 1% and today it is 12.2% (combining workers and employer's taxes).
So to understand the situation, you need to know why 2.9% during the boomer surge in retirees is almost what is sustainable given the current tax rate (3% or so is sutainable).
So now that we see the whole picture, how easily can SS be made sustainable?
Very easily: we have about 10 years to pass a 6 word law: The Social Security cap is repealed. That and raising the tax by less than 1% would make the program sustainable for the foreseeable future. It's that simple.
If you think blood can be squeezed out of a turnip and oppose progressive taxation, perhaps SS seems unfair since those making $18,000 a year and paying in about $1500 a year (leaving them less than is needed to rent the average 2 br apartment in the nation) and getting the same as a person making $100,000 and paying in perhap $8-10,000, the to you , SS is unfair.
Let's look at a hedge fund manager making a billion a year (a few do each year) and paying in about $120,000 and getting no more than the wage slave at Walmart making minimum wage).....but his is just over 1% of his earning, leaving him 99% (minus other taxes), whereas the McDonald's worker is paying perhaps 10%. That is a regressive tax.
If Elon Musk, who made a killing during the pandemic: "According to Bloomberg’s Billionaires tracking index, Elon Musk has made a profit of $79.6 billion since last year, " If he paid 15% payroll (self-employed) on that profit (he probably did not due to tax loopholes for the very rich), he would have left over only about 76 billion (minus other taxes which in many years he has paid zero)....
So the Walmart gal pays 12.2% (combined worker/employer: same difference) and has enough to rent an apartment but not buy food or clothing or transportation, while Musk has 77 billion left over to spend buying mansions and Twitter and flying into space Can you squeeze blood out of a turnip?
Is SS necessary? If everyone saved, and if the markets were dependable, there would be no need, but that guy making $18,000 a year is NOT able to save and the markets collapse every ten years. If you had your retirement money in the market when it crashed, tough luck!
And in a nation where the average household debt is $96,000 and rising, good luck saving money when you are paying thousands a month in debt repayment. So is SS necessary to keep the eldlerly and disabled out of poverty? HIstory says, yes, that is the case, because expecting people who are mired in debt to save and the market in which they invest their savings to be dependable are both unreasonable
SS is sustainable with changes in the law that will effect only the wealthiest among us, it will then be more progressive and therefore more fair, and until pigs fly and the majority in deep debt are able to save, it is necessary.
SS is as unsustainable as all public schemes. Why do they all fail? They rely on force, threats, NOT reason, rights, choice. It’s logical to “live & let live”, anything less is inhuman/impractical, uncivilized.
If everyone saved, and if the markets were dependable, there would be no need
Not true. People who are willing and able to save for a comfortable retirement depend on the fact that most people can't or won't to make their plan feasible. Savings are just money. They are a deferred demand on the things needed for life. They are not stockpiles of food, clothing, housing, medical supplies, transportation, etc. If every worker saved adequately for retirement in a country with an aging population like ours, then, when the growing cohort of retirees started withdrawing from those savings to live on, the resulting flood of cash from cashed-out savings would cause hyperinflation that would wipe out the buying power of those savings. Retired people with adequate or better retirement savings are dependent on most old people being poor and on the dole to ensure their comfort.
LMAO.... "flood of cash from cashed-out savings"
Right.......... That must be what causes inflation... /s
Anymore BS you'd like to sell?
That was unintelligible.
Some ideas are just too stupid to waste time debating them.
So long as money is *EARNED* by creating needed human resources it’s never going to be the cause of inflation.
Yes, as long as old people with savings leave them in place until they die and never disinvest for current consumption, that's true.
Because socialism has worked so well in so many places....
"The Social Security cap is repealed. That and raising the tax by less than 1%"
Would be more fair if you called it what it would be then: Old Age Welfare.
There aren't many saving aspects to SS, but one it the universal nature of it. Everyone pays in, everyone is eligible. The caps on taxes reflect the limits on payments.
Remove the caps on taxation without removing the corresponding caps on payments makes the system nothing more than welfare.
Usually, this sort of proposal also includes means-testing, so that people who did the right things all their lives and planned for their own financial security in old age are further excluded from benefits. So you increase the number of people who pay and pay and pay and pay and are eligible for nothing. Just be honest and call it welfare cash-transfer payments.
"Elon Musk has made a profit of $79.6 billion since last year"
Just to be clear: Elon Musks stock holdings may have increased in market value by $79B. But Tesla could go belly up next year and those holdings would be worthless.
Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto entrepreneur known for providing a financial lifeline to struggling firms in the industry, is now in need of a bailout himself.
One day a few weeks back, SBF, was firmly in the realm of billionaires, with an estimated fortune of more than $15 billion. Then he lost 94% of his "wealth" in ONE DAY.
Oh, and of course he's looking at prison time for securities fraud, etc. but the point is that on-paper wealth is not a guarantee.
Im making over $13k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.last month her pay check was $12712 just working on the laptop for a few hours. This is what I do,
VISIT THIS WEBSITE HERE………….>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Strike the root of the problem! Abolish authoritarianism.
"America" is 100s of millions of different lifestyles, opinions, values.
A few can't force their values of all, morally or practically. How do I know? That is the worldwide political paradigm that is failing and has failed forever. It works for an elite at everyone else's expense, but not completely, not in the long run. Concentrated political power creates concentrated wealth, poverty.
The less initiation of force, threats, the freer, the wealthier/happier the populace. So, why not eliminate authoritarianism completely? Why not show respect for each person's "right to life" by letting all "live & let live", i.e., run their own life, reaping the benefits, and vice versa?
Anything less is anti-human, uncivilized, disrespectful of others. It's only logical.
Nestor v Flemming is what I say when people talk about Social Security. It’s a tax nothing more otherwise Social Security is unconstitutional
Legislation should be enacted to adopt this basic structure:
1.Close Social Security and Medicare to new participants as of, e.g., December 31, 2023. No one who begins earning "wages" after that date will ever pay any taxes or receive any benefits. Instead, 15 % of their "wages" goes into a defined contribution plan to purchase disability insurance, and term life insurance, with the rest invested for retirement.
2.Workers who are already in the system may elect to opt out, and will pay no more taxes and receive no benefits, but will then participate in the new system described above.
3. Workers who don't opt out continue to pay taxes and are eligible for benefits under the current system. The so-called "trust fund" is abolished and all benefits are paid from the general fund, as is effectively the case today.
Sounds good, but let people opt out of the new plan too. Free people don't need the government to force them to save.
Since government is on the hook if they fail to save, yes, they need to be forced to save.
The government should be allowed at that point to say "tough shit". You opted out, that means you opted out. You get nothing.
Harsh, but fair.
There's no need to throw EVERYONE into slavery of the State for survival needs. There is a prison system already setup for this including healthcare, food, and shelter.
Just because YOU decided to vote for armed-theft criminal careers doesn't mean we *all* have to be prison and frankly your career choice (voting for theft of your neighbors) should JUSTLY put you there along with the treasonous politicians who supported this criminal wave of *entitlements* at others expenses.
All the points in the article are true, but any politician proposing even the most modest cut in benefits has doomed his or her electoral chances.
SS is a Ponzi scheme, and should be shut down immediately. Sell off any remaining assets and apportion them out to the surviving victims in proportion to how much was taken from them as FICA taxes.
Means testing for SS benefits would solve a lot of problems (albeit not the inherent unfairness of it), at least short term
But that's not going to happen. And if that obvious, relatively painless thing won't happen, actually abolishing it won't ever. It's going to run out of money and we are just going to borrow more to pay for it.
This could never happen and should never happen.
Retirement security for the elderly is a universal expectation and a hallmark of civilization. Ending it would bring about the return of rampant elderly poverty and homelessness.
"is a universal expectation and a hallmark of civilization"
So was Venezuela; until one day it wasn't any more.
This is one of the least libertarian articles Reason has put out lately, and that's saying a lot.
Sorry y'all but the weather just keeps changing!!!
[WE] have got to stop the weather from changing!!!
Even if it takes *all* your SS payments.
You do realize that "entitlement" means you directly paid into it and therefore are indeed entitled to it, right? Roads, not entitled to. Welfare, not entitled to. Social Security, entitled to if you paid in for enough quarters.
No, you may not steal my money more. Most people die before collecting that money they are entitled to under anyone's account. There is no excuse for it to be broke other than politicians stealing from it.
If you'd like to change the accounting of social security so it couldn't be taken by politicians looking to balance the budget that's one thing. If you'd like to change the way it's collected for the future payers that's one thing. But to actually steal what would amount to millions from people who've already millions stolen from them in other retirement plans and pensions, no.
That's not what "entitlement" means in the context of government programs.
"Entitlement" means "you are qualified for the benefits based on meeting criteria set by law". In other words, any and everyone who meets the legal requirements are "entitled" to the benefits. In *some* cases there are criteria that include having paid in.
21st Century law… Stop being one of those selfish, greedy, ‘icky’ *working* people or [WE] gov-gun packing gangsters and our gang leader politicians will just keep stealing from you… You corporate selfish b*stards…./s
...And that’s how the walls of ?justice? works in the USA in the 21st century; same as every other socialist nightmare of a nation.
You are wrong and using the (right wing) govt newspeak to get people to say "sure, steal our money". Welfare is not and has never been classified as an entitlement. When they complain about entitlements they are talking about theft. And when Libertarians pile on they are proving they are nothing more than RINOs in disquise.
Fact Sheet from SSA.gov: The Social Security benefit programs are “entitlement” programs.
GAO.gov: What are Entitlements? Programs are generally considered to be entitlements if legislation requires the payment of benefits to any person or unit of government that meets the eligibility required by law. Eligible recipients have legal recourse if this binding obligation on the government is not fulfilled.
AP Government exam: Entitlement programs are government-sponsored programs providing mandated/guaranteed/required benefits to those who meet eligibility requirements/qualifications.
Dictionary: a government program that guarantees certain benefits to a particular group or segment of the population.
AARP: Federal programs that guarantee payments to individuals who meet certain criteria set by law.
"entitlement spending is based on the eligibility and benefit criteria established in law"
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS20129/11
Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements
in the Federal Budget Proces
Entitlement spending is a form of mandatory spending (also referred to as direct spending), which
currently comprises more than half of total federal spending. Spending on entitlements is not
controlled through the annual appropriations process. Instead, entitlement spending is based on
the eligibility and benefit criteria established in law, which is under the jurisdiction of the various
authorizing committees of the House and Senate. The total amount of spending on entitlements is
determined by the aggregate total of all individual benefits. Most entitlement spending, such as
for Medicare, is not capped at a specific spending level, and typically increases (but may
decrease) each year as the number of eligible beneficiaries and the authorized benefit payments
increases (or decreases). However, some entitlement spending—particularly entitlement
payments to states, such as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (commonly referred to
as CHIP)—is capped at a specific level provided in the authorizing law.
Most entitlement spending bypasses the annual appropriations process altogether and is funded by
permanent or multiyear appropriations in substantive law. Such spending becomes available
automatically each year, without legislative action by Congress. Examples of such programs
include Social Security, Medicare, and federal employee retirement.
A portion of entitlement spending, such as Medicaid and certain veterans’ programs, is funded in
annual appropriations acts. Such entitlement spending, referred to as appropriated entitlements,
comprises roughly 36%-38% of funding provided in the annual appropriations acts. While the
funding is provided in the annual appropriations acts, the level of spending for appropriated
entitlements is not controlled through the annual appropriations process. Instead, the level of
spending for appropriated entitlements, like other entitlements, is based on the benefit and
eligibility criteria established in law, and the amount provided in appropriations acts is based on
meeting this projected level.
"Welfare is not and has never been classified as an entitlement."
Welfare most certainly is and always has been classified as "entitlement spending".
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS20129/11
Entitlements and Appropriated Entitlements
in the Federal Budget Process
"Entitlements are programs that require payments to persons, state or local governments, or
other entities if specific eligibility criteria established in the authorizing law are met.
Entitlement payments are legal obligations of the federal government, and eligible
beneficiaries may have legal recourse if full payment under the law is not provided. "
All these are classified as entitlements:
Refundable Tax Credits – These are tax credits that pay out cash as welfare. The two programs are the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Child Tax Credit. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) runs the programs. The tax credits include a “refundable” portion that benefits individuals and families that owe no income tax for the year. Therefore, this portion acts as welfare or a “negative income tax”.
SNAP – This is a food program for low-income individuals and families. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It used to be called the food stamp program. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) runs the program. Participants receive a debit card for the purchase of food. Most grocery stores around the nation accept the cards.
Housing Assistance – The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) runs various housing programs. The programs include rental assistance, public housing, and various community development grants.
SSI – SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income. This is a program to pay cash to low-income individuals if they are blind, disabled or over 65 years of age. The Social Security Administration runs the program.
Pell Grants – This is a grant program to help low-income students go to college. It pays up to $6,000 to students from low-income households. The Department of Education runs the program.
TANF – This is a combined federal and state program that pays cash to low-income households. The goal of the program is to move individuals from welfare to work. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) runs the program.
Child Nutrition – These are food programs that include school lunch, school breakfast, and after-school programs. They target children from low-income households and provide free or reduced-price meals. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) runs the program.
Head Start – This is a pre-school program available to kids from low-income families. HHS runs the program.
Job Training Programs – This represents several programs to provide job training, displacement, and employment services. The programs generally target low-income Americans, although this is not always the case. The Department of Labor (DOL) runs the program.
WIC – This is a program to provide Healthy food to pregnant women and children up to five years of age. The program targets low-income households. WIC stands for Women, Infants, and Children.
Child Care – This is a program to support low-income families with child care. HHS runs the program. States and local public and private agencies receive block grants from HHS to provide the services.
LIHEAP – This is a program to help low-income households with their home energy costs. The program is available to help pay for either the heating or cooling of a home. LIHEAP stands for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. HHS runs the program.
Lifeline (Obama Phone) – This is a program to provide discounted phone service, including cell phones, to low-income individuals. The Federal Communications Commission runs the program.
HHS.gov:
A few open-ended or “entitlement” programs that use the poverty guidelines for eligibility are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps), the National School Lunch Program, certain parts of Medicaid, and the subsidized portion of Medicare – Prescription Drug Coverage.
So the Democratic House Causus are a bunch of right-wing RINOs?
https://democrats-budget.house.gov/publications/report/what-you-need-know-about-means-tested-entitlements
Means-tested entitlement[1] programs are the core of our nation’s social safety net. They deliver vital assistance that protects millions of Americans from entering poverty, while providing ongoing safety and stability for individuals and families facing poverty every single day. Means-tested entitlement programs fall into two major categories – health programs (i.e. Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act subsidies) and income security programs (i.e. nutrition assistance, Supplemental Security Income [SSI], the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], and the Child Tax Credit [CTC]). Also included are pensions for low-income veterans and portions of the Pell grant program.
What are income security means-tested entitlements [2]?
Income security programs aid millions of Americans in poverty by providing direct monetary or non-cash assistance. As designed, they respond automatically to changes in economic conditions that result in more individuals and families needing assistance, immediately kicking in when families need them the most by providing instant relief and stability. Not only do these programs provide a safety net for families in need, they also provide stimulus to the economy during downturns by ensuring families possess the resources to purchase vital goods and services – giving families the ability to protect themselves while simultaneously pumping money back into the economy.
The largest income security programs in terms of federal dollars spent are the EITC and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which together are one of “the strongest tools to promote work and help workers with children escape poverty and achieve self-sufficiency [3].” The major non-cash benefits are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child nutrition programs, including free and reduced-price school lunch. Other forms of income security include cash assistance to low-income parents (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), subsidized child care, and support for children in the foster care system. While most low-income Americans benefit from some, but not all of these programs, the ones for which they do qualify provide a critical economic safety net.
Walk into pretty much any casino in America before 5 P.M. and walk around and take a realky good look at you see.
What you will see is dozens upon dozens of lonely old grandmas and grandpas, mindlessly sitting there in front of the slot machines, slowly donating those "Social Security" checks straight to the gaming industry, one penny or nickel at a time.
It's one of the saddest, most pathetic things you can see in this country pretty much every day of the week, on so many different levels.
You lost at 'its not fair'. The rich pay far more SS taxes than the middle class or poor. The poor and many middle class get so much income support and subsidies that Im guessing SS tax on net doesnt hit them at all.
The rich pay a much lesser percentage of their income to Social Security than the rest of us. The cap on taxes for the rich should be removed. Donald Trump paid $175 in federal income taxes last year. That this does not outrage you shows you have been fully duped by the propagandists for the wealthy.
Then remove the cap on benefits, too. That's fair.
But no!
People want to remove the cap on taxes, then means test benefits. This creates a system where people will pay in exorbitant amounts and never be eligible for benefits. That won't cause resentment and evasion at all...
This is a monstrous plan supported by lies. The Social Security Fund is not part of the general fund. It has remained solvent for 80 years despite massive thefts from it under Reagan and GW Bush. I put money into the fund for decades. Now you want to steal it from me. This is wrong on so many levels that I can no longer trust what you laughingly call "Reason" again.
I think you mean Clinton.
It was already stolen from you when you paid the taxes. Your taxes paid for other people to get the benefits they received.
The reason not to: most people are too stupid to do it themselves. This would most definitely include almost anyone who thinks it should be privatized, because to a man (and rarely, a woman) they badly guestimate some sort of return on their FICA money and compare it to the stock market, which is wrong for two VERY major reasons
1: SS has a very low risk profile. It is a mixture of bonds, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and life insurance that automatically rolls into an inflation-adjusted annuity with spousal benefits. THAT, and ONLY that, should be your comparison point, not something with astronomically more risk. And if you've ever tried to price out an inflation-adjusted annuity with spousal benefits, you'd know what a mighty gift SS is in that respect.
2: If everyone was piling their SS money into the market, returns on that capital would go down. Supply and demand seems to be too much for these fools to grasp. *incumbent* stock owners would win, but future ones would find their yields bid away by the competition.