If fixing Social Security were easy, it would already be done

[OldGaffer]

Just as I suspected, your Social Security fix is to take the FICA contributions and permit the individual to invest the FICA tax as the individual sees fit.

Your social security fix is to privatize social security.

That's the gist of your argument, isn't it?

He wont admit that.

 

[Joe Economist]

Just as I suspected, your Social Security fix is to take the FICA contributions and permit the individual to invest the FICA tax as the individual sees fit.

Your social security fix is to privatize social security.

That's the gist of your argument, isn't it?

You will have to show me the page where I say that privatizing SS is a solution or even a good idea. I really want to avoid any confusion.

Privatization within the Social Security debate has its own meaning. Traditionally privatization means getting private sector firms to provide a governmental service. In the GOP's version of 'privatization', we are getting private firms to provide a completely different service - but we keep the same name. Today SS functions like insurance - which manages risk. What the GOP sells as 'privatization' is a savings vehicle - which accumulates wealth. These aren't the same thing or anything close.

If your 'suspected' came from our site, please let me know the page that you visited so that we can clean it up.

Thanks,

 

[EatTheRich]

As a "retirement program" for the wealthy, social security is a failure. As an anti-poverty program for the working class, it is a stunning success.

 

[Joe Economist]

As a "retirement program" for the wealthy, social security is a failure. As an anti-poverty program for the working class, it is a stunning success.

It isn't a retirement plan at all. IT IS INSURANCE.

Considering that people now on average pay more than they expect to collect it does an outstanding of creating poverty for it to cure later. Mind you that assumes that they collect at all.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Every person I know that is not personally wealthy at retirement age or on a pension is counting on SS and Medicare. Every single one of them. It works.

 

[Joe Economist]

Every person I know that is not personally wealthy at retirement age or on a pension is counting on SS and Medicare. Every single one of them. It works.

Explain 'it works'... According to the Trustees, anyone 64 years or younger expects to outlive full benefits. You can't say that it works for them.

People born after 1970 generally contribute more money into the system than they expect to collect. They would be better off putting the money under a mattress than putting it into Social Security. The high cost of the system makes saving outside of the system more difficult, and ensures many that they will arrive at retirement in poverty. It doesn't work for them.


Who does it work for? The politicians are able to get re-elected by promising people that the system is fine, and only right-wing fear mongerers - like the Trustees - think that there is any problem. Only 22% of voting aged Americans expect to die before the Trust Fund is exhausted.

 

[EatTheRich]

It works in the sense that poverty, especially among the old, has shrunk considerably compared with its 1935 baseline.

Your second paragraph, above, if it shows anything, shows that it fails as an insurance program. It does not show that it fails as an anti-poverty program. As a matter of fact, capitalism by its nature sets wage levels (including the wages capitalists pay that go toward taxes) at a level at which the average worker can afford to save nothing. So comparing social security (which includes substantial contributions by employers as well, and may be financed by income taxes and other sources of revenue in the future) with an individual savings plan is disingenuous when the real comparison is between social security, and no security whatsoever in retirement.

First you say the surpluses are meaningless because social security isn't a separate pot of money, then you say that when the trust fund runs out, social security will be doomed. The fact is that reducing benefits for current or future retirees, the disabled, and widows is ONE option among many for dealing with capitalism's looming fiscal crisis. It is an option that is preferred by the rich because it puts the burden on the poor.

 

[OldGaffer]

So comparing social security (which includes substantial contributions by employers as well, and may be financed by income taxes and other sources of revenue in the future) with an individual savings plan is disingenuous when the real comparison is between social security, and no security whatsoever in retirement.

The Truth that Joe could care less about.

 

[Joe Economist]

The Truth that Joe could care less about.

You have a staggering ability to be wrong. Look at item 42, 6 comments up.

You don't even provide a source for your 'truth'. This is not a disingenuous comparison as much as it is irrelevant.

Your source is uninformed when it tries to protray the funding coming from employers. The Social Security's money's worth studies recognize the fact that employers lower employee wages to reflect these costs. Of course your source knows more than the SSA.

 

[Joe Economist]

It works in the sense that poverty, especially among the old, has shrunk considerably compared with its 1935 baseline.

Yes, and poverty in households headed by someone 35 and under has more than doubled. Thanks,

Your second paragraph, above, if it shows anything, shows that it fails as an insurance program. It does not show that it fails as an anti-poverty program.

Of its 2700+ rules, not one pays benefits based on need so it isn't an anti-poverty program.

First you say the surpluses are meaningless because social security isn't a separate pot of money, then you say that when the trust fund runs out, social security will be doomed.

Where did I say the first. I have said that the surpluses in Social Security are meaningless in that they are fully committed to benefits already. The problem is the other 20.5 trillion in promises for which there is no funding.

The fact is that reducing benefits for current or future retirees, the disabled, and widows is ONE option among many for dealing with capitalism's looming fiscal crisis. It is an option that is preferred by the rich because it puts the burden on the poor.

Reducing benefits will fall hardest on those who contributed the most in the past. There is no way to say whether these people are poor today or not. So you are simply factually wrong.

 

[OldGaffer]

Well, "Joe the Economist", you come back with thread after thread and post after post lamenting the social security program, and yet, you have offerred no alternatives to either fix or replace the program. So exactly what is your agenda?

 

[Joe Economist]

I just want an honest debate. I couldn't care less how reform plays out so long as we are honest about it. The discussion about Chain-CPI is a good example of dishonesty on all sides. People who are for it say that it 'measures inflation more accurately'. That is comical bobby-socks. It measures at least in part the behavioral response to inflation. It is a benefit cut - be honest about it. The idea that Chain-CPI hurts the poor is not honest either. The benefit cut falls most on those with the largest benefits, ie people who contributed the most in the past. When you make decisions based on BS, you should expect to see the system fail on a massive scale.

What you call lamenting is also referred as quoting the Trustees of the system. If you don't like their facts, vote for people who will fire them. You are inferring your response to facts to me. If reading the facts makes you fear about the system, it is you that is doing the lamenting not me.

 

[OldGaffer]

I have confidence that social security will continue, and be fixed as needed. The American people want social security, they like social security, and they are willing to pay for social security, therefore, we will have social security. Pretty simple, really.

 

[Joe Economist]

I have confidence that social security will continue, and be fixed as needed. The American people want social security, they like social security, and they are willing to pay for social security, therefore, we will have social security. Pretty simple, really.

Why? When I give you facts as presented by the Trustees of the system, you don't demostrate any confidence. You revert to name-calling and quotes from think-tanks and politicians. These people are literally paid to tell you that the world is OK.

Every poll that I have seen says that Americans like the concept of Social Security. I have seen no poll that suggests that they are willing to pay more for it though. Polls cited by supporters invariably do not say what supporters claim. The headline reads "80% of Americans want higher Social Security taxes", but the poll actually asked a very different question. "Do you want benefit cuts to be part of the deficit reduction process?" It is a stupid question because cutting SS benefits doesn't change the deficit. I saw a Yahoo poll of 40,000 respondents which asked "Are YOU (emphasis added) Willing To Pay Higher Social Security Taxes To Ensure The Future Of The System?" NOs beat YESs 9 to 1.

 

[OldGaffer]

Yes, Joe, they will pay more if need be, for around 50% of the population social security is their only income after retirement. Either come up with a way to replace that income that will be viable, or forget it and find another crusade.

 

[Joe Economist]

ITS FLAT

You vent like you are part of the Flat Earth Society. This comes from the US census. More than 50% of voting aged Americans expect to retire after the Trust Fund is gone. Only 20% expect to capture scheduled benefits over the course of their life.

The ONLY revenue that goes into Social Security comes from someone who is losing money on the deal. You can count on them ignoring the problem when it is 20 years away, it will be a very different situation once it is 10 and then 5. The idea that you can 'replace' 20 trillion dollars is silly. You either trust the Trustees or you don't.

 

[OldGaffer]

Whatever, Joe, congratulate yourself on another meaningless thread.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Looks like every single thing you mentioned could be fixed. It is all humanly possible. After all, SS was made by man, it can be changed by man. Next.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Legally, you are correct. Politically, it will be impossible to change SS. When you get over 60, you will come around. Until then, pay your taxes, your elders need you.

 

[Woolleybugger]

So? Collect more taxes or pay from the general fund, same difference. It's a matter of choices. Invade Iran or support your parents and grandparents? When a nation spends 600-700 billion a year on killing machines and the apparatus to kill, one has to wonder what kind of soul that nation has...death or life. Take a pick.