Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Social Security at Risk

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 6:56:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

No problem with those suggestions.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 8:47:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:56:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

No problem with those suggestions.

I have not researched it yet, but I was a financial analyst for AIM/INVESCO in Houston for 10 years, and can not off the top of my head see why they can't let us invest our money ourselves. There are plans that could be used (like retirement accounts) with strict rules put in place. I'm talking about extremely conservative investing, and very strict instructions about what you could invest in, and procedures for withdraws. Those of us who have worked already for over 20-25 years have put in a considerable amount, and I for one would like to ensure that money is there when I retire. Right now, I have almost NO confidence that the government will be able to pay out SS 30-40 years down the line.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 9:28:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 8:47:53 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:56:12 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

No problem with those suggestions.

I have not researched it yet, but I was a financial analyst for AIM/INVESCO in Houston for 10 years, and can not off the top of my head see why they can't let us invest our money ourselves. There are plans that could be used (like retirement accounts) with strict rules put in place. I'm talking about extremely conservative investing, and very strict instructions about what you could invest in, and procedures for withdraws. Those of us who have worked already for over 20-25 years have put in a considerable amount, and I for one would like to ensure that money is there when I retire. Right now, I have almost NO confidence that the government will be able to pay out SS 30-40 years down the line.

But government is a big business now, where is it going to collect its working capital?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:18:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Social Security surplus is invested in US Treasuries which enables the federal government to borrow less from other sources. The government borrows these Social Security funds to pay for other government spending -- but is obligated to pay interest on these borrowings -- and pay back the borrowed funds in full when they are needed by Social Security for benefit payments.

What a nice gig, free investors in the business of government.
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2015 10:19:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

Reasonable assertions.
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:18:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This has been a concern since SS's conception but we keep pushing it down the tracks.
Pyramid schemes have always been a concern. Insurance is another (PS) and NOW the alarming part is this pickle of ZIRP Zero Interest Rate Policy, where there is no return on the investment (zero risk) and will be flushed away if the fed goes NIRP Negative Interest Rate Policy

Allowing people to invest for their own retirement is incredibly dangerous considering many lack the skills to create a personal Budget. Hell some can even do basic mathematics
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 1:51:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

You engage in it by voting, paying taxes, etc.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 2:00:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Every time we vote (there's more to it than this but voting is the most obvious) is a renewal of our contract with the government

read Jean Jacques Rousseau's a Social Contract
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 2:35:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:51:10 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

You engage in it by voting, paying taxes, etc.

Question for you harderthanyou, would you be upset if your employer's only available 401k was an investment in company stocks where you work? Cause Soc. Security doesn't give you any other choice either.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 2:40:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 2:35:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:51:10 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

You engage in it by voting, paying taxes, etc.

Question for you harderthanyou, would you be upset if your employer's only available 401k was an investment in company stocks where you work? Cause Soc. Security doesn't give you any other choice either.

You are asking me, a 14 year old, about 401k's? I mean...there is a limit to what I research. Defined contribution plans haven't quite found their way into my time yet lol.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 3:11:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 2:40:05 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:35:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:51:10 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

You engage in it by voting, paying taxes, etc.

Question for you harderthanyou, would you be upset if your employer's only available 401k was an investment in company stocks where you work? Cause Soc. Security doesn't give you any other choice either.

You are asking me, a 14 year old, about 401k's? I mean...there is a limit to what I research. Defined contribution plans haven't quite found their way into my time yet lol.

Hay, I can't assume you are not a child genius.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:34:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 2:00:13 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Every time we vote (there's more to it than this but voting is the most obvious) is a renewal of our contract with the government

read Jean Jacques Rousseau's a Social Contract

Therefore, if a person does not vote, that person is not a party to this "contract".

Where are the details of this contract? It appears to be rather fluid.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:41:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:51:10 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

You engage in it by voting, paying taxes, etc.

That is not agreement. If the candidate that a person votes for receives loses, then those voters have not agent, and can not agree to any contract.

Paying taxes also is not agreement. Taxes are compulsory, and non payment will result in a knock on the door from "jack-booted thugs".
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 1:05:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:34:04 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:00:13 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Every time we vote (there's more to it than this but voting is the most obvious) is a renewal of our contract with the government

read Jean Jacques Rousseau's a Social Contract

Therefore, if a person does not vote, that person is not a party to this "contract".

Where are the details of this contract? It appears to be rather fluid.

yes it is fluid
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 2:02:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 1:05:55 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:34:04 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 2:00:13 AM, ironslippers wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Every time we vote (there's more to it than this but voting is the most obvious) is a renewal of our contract with the government

read Jean Jacques Rousseau's a Social Contract

Therefore, if a person does not vote, that person is not a party to this "contract".

Where are the details of this contract? It appears to be rather fluid.

yes it is fluids

Maybe, should be called fictional.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 2:28:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Everyone has it by continuing to live in and benefit from society. If you don't wish to be part of it, you may leave civil society. Move countries or build a cabin in the woods.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 2:33:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

I'd say it'd be better to educate Americans on intelligent financing, let social security crash and use some act to reimburse those who lost their money in it, then let natural selection remove the population that doesn't care about budgeting their money to where they have some for retirement (of course, this means we make no effort to help them when they're starving and on the streets). Suddenly we have a nation that doesn't need social security (by suddenly I mean within the next hundred years).
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:31:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Amazing the three card monty tricks the Government plays with Americans. Per the Social Security Administration:

1) Currently there are 2.8 Americans for each SS beneficiary
2) By 2035, there will be 2.1 Americans for each SS beneficiary
3) Americans currently in their 20's will carry a 1 in 8 "death before collection" rate; meaning 1 in 8 will not collect benefits they pay into.
4) 2035 is the year the Vietnam Vets era will qualify for retirement via Social Security
5) Millennial Population = 83.1 | Baby Boomer Population = 75.4 -- Meaning more Americans paying into the system
6) Men AND women now populate the workforce as opposed to just men while the women are "House Wives" as the '60's and previous had seen. -- Meaning double the funds
7) Only 34% of the current workforce does NOT have a personal pension plan which means less people so dependent on Social Security
8) Social Security was started in 1935
9) The first Social Security payments into the system were in 1937 with lump sum amounts
10) Social Security payments into the system began a monthly tax in 1940
11) Americans pay an average of 12.4% of their salary into Social Security annually; 6.2% by employee, 6.2% by employer matching
12) Individuals making over $110,000 annually still have to pay into the system, yet do not qualify for benefits at retirement

There are a few points to get you started. Do the math there, think LOGICALLY about it, then question why they are making such a big deal out of SS trust fund status. The key is, stop "borrowing" our SS.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,065
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 4:12:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 3:31:52 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
Amazing the three card monty tricks the Government plays with Americans. Per the Social Security Administration:

1) Currently there are 2.8 Americans for each SS beneficiary
2) By 2035, there will be 2.1 Americans for each SS beneficiary
3) Americans currently in their 20's will carry a 1 in 8 "death before collection" rate; meaning 1 in 8 will not collect benefits they pay into.
4) 2035 is the year the Vietnam Vets era will qualify for retirement via Social Security
5) Millennial Population = 83.1 | Baby Boomer Population = 75.4 -- Meaning more Americans paying into the system
6) Men AND women now populate the workforce as opposed to just men while the women are "House Wives" as the '60's and previous had seen. -- Meaning double the funds
7) Only 34% of the current workforce does NOT have a personal pension plan which means less people so dependent on Social Security
8) Social Security was started in 1935
9) The first Social Security payments into the system were in 1937 with lump sum amounts
10) Social Security payments into the system began a monthly tax in 1940
11) Americans pay an average of 12.4% of their salary into Social Security annually; 6.2% by employee, 6.2% by employer matching
12) Individuals making over $110,000 annually still have to pay into the system, yet do not qualify for benefits at retirement

There are a few points to get you started. Do the math there, think LOGICALLY about it, then question why they are making such a big deal out of SS trust fund status. The key is, stop "borrowing" our SS.

There are also some places on Earth where changing demographics mean that more people are retired than working. Japan and Europe are experiencing this to a degree now and the United States is getting there. We can't assume that because this problem is 20 or even 50 years down the road it isn't a problem.
100% of a retired person's income comes from social security, whereas only a fraction of a working person's income goes into it. Also, virtually all elderly Americans are eventually able to retire, because how much you get from it doesn't depend on how much you put into it. However, a fairly large percentage of working or working-age American citizens don't pay taxes beyond, say, sales tax. It'd also simply be unfair to extract huge amounts of money from rich people to pay for something which they don't benefit from at all.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 8:06:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 4:12:38 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

There are also some places on Earth where changing demographics mean that more people are retired than working. Japan and Europe are experiencing this to a degree now and the United States is getting there.

No we are actually going the opposite way; as previously stated, the Social Security Administration stated that right now almost 3 people live on 1 SS beneficiary; by 2035 this will drop to 2 people per SS. Also, Europe is experiencing this due to their Socialistic swing in ideology, pay for everything for everybody...even if they can't afford it. European nations are actually struggling right now trying to figure out how to balance their health care bills...the same health care model we are moving toward right now, is the same one bankrupting Europe.

We can't assume that because this problem is 20 or even 50 years down the road it isn't a problem.

That's the point, if you follow the numbers presently and to the future instead of calculating them based on data from 1940 on, the projections do the complete opposite of what is being claimed. Politicians are forgetting Women are now in the workforce and we have double the income to Social Security, among a number of other items previously listed.

100% of a retired person's income comes from social security, whereas only a fraction of a working person's income goes into it.

The only thing 100% here, is how 100% false this statement is. According to AARP data: Percentage of Americans 100% dependent on Social Security Benefits as of the year 2010 (By age group) are as follows:

Age 65-69 = 8.9% of Retired Americans are 100% dependent on Social Security
Age 70-74 = 14.5% of Retired Americans are 100% dependent on Social Security
Age 75-79 = 15.1% of Retired Americans are 100% dependent on Social Security
Age 80 + = 17.4% of Retired Americans are 100% dependent on Social Security

Not even close to 100%.


Also, virtually all elderly Americans are eventually able to retire, because how much you get from it doesn't depend on how much you put into it.

Again, incorrect. According to the Social Security Administration, the amount of payout depends on two factors:

1) The date you were born
2) Your earnings during employment


However, a fairly large percentage of working or working-age American citizens don't pay taxes beyond, say, sales tax.

Again, incorrect. No matter the tax bracket you fall under, Social Security tax is not tax refundable as this is considered a "trust fund account" for each worker's retirement, additionally, if you somehow never worked a day in your life, there are separate funds setup specifically for those individuals These individuals are called "Never-beneficiaries" and on average compile about 4% of the retirement age population of the United States.

It'd also simply be unfair to extract huge amounts of money from rich people to pay for something which they don't benefit from at all.

We in fact do. I believe the cutoff is currently $110,000 annually. The reason for this is because Social Security was setup to take care of the aging U.,S. population from WWI & WWII. In fact, even congress and the President have to pay Social Security taxes. It's a safety net for all. Imagine if you lost your money to a stock market crash, a shady investor like Bernie Madoff, your business tanked very quickly, etc. Do you not think these people would appreciate even the slightest of safety nets. Oh! and Medicade / medicare payments, not sure which one it is, comes from our paychecks..
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 9:34:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 2:28:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Everyone has it by continuing to live in and benefit from society. If you don't wish to be part of it, you may leave civil society. Move countries or build a cabin in the woods.

Civil society has customs not a "social contract". Society is *NOT* government!

If a person does not want to participate in this fluid contract, they should not be forced to. Keep the contract to those that voluntarily agree to it.

The enforcers will find a person in the woods and in other countries.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 10:28:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 9:34:25 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/23/2015 2:28:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Everyone has it by continuing to live in and benefit from society. If you don't wish to be part of it, you may leave civil society. Move countries or build a cabin in the woods.

Civil society has customs not a "social contract". Society is *NOT* government!

Civilization is government.

If a person does not want to participate in this fluid contract, they should not be forced to. Keep the contract to those that voluntarily agree to it.

No one is forced to. You can leave civil society anytime.

The enforcers will find a person in the woods and in other countries.

No, they won't, because you'll be living entirely on your own merits.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 11:53:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/21/2015 6:28:05 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Social Security is, in truth, a compulsory pyramid scheme. People pay into the system and eventually it's their turn to be paid for.
The system works as long as the number of young people is much larger than the number of old people. However, people today are living longer and fewer people are having kids than they used to. This has resulted in some places and is becoming increasingly the case in others that there are more old people that young.
Now, people like social security, but they don't want to effin' spend all their working years paying huge taxes to pay for it hoping that it'll eventually be their turn.

My solutions:
-Raise retirement age to 70
-30 years maximum of receiving money from social security (if you're still alive after 100, well, you've had a long life)
-Encourage euthanasia

WTF, no.

Still, I'm not sure that this will be sufficient...

It probably won't. The system was designed by baby boomers, for baby boomers. Everyone else is fvcked.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 3:02:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 10:28:41 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/23/2015 9:34:25 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/23/2015 2:28:04 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:48:01 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/22/2015 1:27:47 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
There are things that would be inherently immoral for a government to push - such as age cut-offs for their support and encouraging euthanasia in the elderly. This would be a clear breach in the social contract between the people and government by the latter.

Who has this "social contract"? A contract requires an agreement, and none of us have agreed for any government to act as an agent.

Everyone has it by continuing to live in and benefit from society. If you don't wish to be part of it, you may leave civil society. Move countries or build a cabin in the woods.

Civil society has customs not a "social contract". Society is *NOT* government!

Civilization is government.

Government is uncivilized! Government requires coercive force not voluntary cooperation. Society and government are not the same.


If a person does not want to participate in this fluid contract, they should not be forced to. Keep the contract to those that voluntarily agree to it.

No one is forced to. You can leave civil society anytime.

Those that want to force values on others should leave!


The enforcers will find a person in the woods and in other countries.

No, they won't, because you'll be living entirely on your own merits.

The collective will want it's "fair share" to pay for the enforcement of the "social contract".
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Sarai.K82
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 5:44:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree on raising the retirement age to 70. I disagree with the other suggestions. As an alternative, I would impose a means test so that the wealthy who do not need social security do not get it. I would lower the COLA by reasonably nominal amount each year. And I would get rid of the tax cap, so that you pay into social security on your entire salary, not just the current level which caps out at about $118,000 these days.