Piece about Social Security benefits

[ProVobis]

This is what I meant. I had to take a snapshot.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dochawk]

But that’s a far cry from theSS not receiving interest on the money it owes the treasury. That’s a matter of a net zero, as one part of the government borrows and another lends.

That brings us, though, to the issue that SS should not be included in the budget–it masks a significant amount of deficit spending.

 

[ProVobis]

That brings us, though, to the issue that SS should not be included in the budget–it masks a significant amount of deficit spending.

Definitely

 

[FiveLinden]

I always find it incredible how people in the USA debate these issues imagining that how things are and have been done in that country are the only possibilities. There are dozens of social security systems in place around the world. Same goes for public health.

 

[Crocus]

I always find it incredible how people in the USA debate these issues imagining that how things are and have been done in that country are the only possibilities. There are dozens of social security systems in place around the world. Same goes for public health.

I agree. Time and again I try, in my mind, to “fix” it based on what I see other countries have accomplished. Invariably end up throwing my hands in the air in despair: the system is just too knotted up, snarled up to unravel. Sigh. No hope so long as partisanship is king.

 

[StephenBales]

Gonna give an unpopular opinion: SS should be phased out of existence entirely.
It may’ve done some good for some people, but it is ultimately a resource drain, the gov’t had no legitimate right or responsibility to institute it, AND, perhaps the worst part, gov’t is simply inefficient, bad at everything. It should not be in charge of anyone’s insurance, whether doling out what was paid in, or “stealing from Peter to pay Paul.”
Those who have paid in already should still get whatever benefits were coming to them. Everyone who hasn’t should have the option to opt out and/or the program should soon be scrapped entirely.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Gonna give an unpopular opinion: SS should be phased out of existence entirely.
It may’ve done some good for some people, but it is ultimately a resource drain, the gov’t had no legitimate right or responsibility to institute it, AND, perhaps the worst part, gov’t is simply inefficient, bad at everything. It should not be in charge of anyone’s insurance, whether doling out what was paid in, or “stealing from Peter to pay Paul.”
Those who have paid in already should still get whatever benefits were coming to them. Everyone who hasn’t should have the option to opt out and/or the program should soon be scrapped entirely.

After a solid look at the 10 worst corporate accounting scandals of all time and the deception/greed associated with it, I’ll choose the government. The imprisonment of the Chief executives was Gods justice by means of judicial righteousness if I’ve ever seen it. The regulations that resulted protected future wolves from harming the sheep once again. Amen

The biggest injustice I see in todays times are those that do not pay their taxes and yet are extremely wealthy. I believe (although it may be a very unpopular opinion in the era of D. Trump & Sons) it is these that are the largest drain on society. Add the tax payer bailouts for the “too big to fail” giants and corporate welfare to this as well.
It certainly did not align with Catholic social justice teaching on the concept of preferential option for the poor, instead it did the laborer and life long investor in many cases a grave harm.

 

[ProVobis]

stealing from Peter to pay Paul.”

This was definitely true at the inception of the program. And it may be true for many of the disabled. But for those who are over 62, many are collecting at least a portion of what they had been payroll taxed.

And isn’t it ironic that the most anti-government President (Reagan) was the one who increased the payroll taxes to make this program solvent?

 

[Theo2]

Interesting discussion. Let me say a few things I have learned over the years. SS is a welfare program. When SS was set up some wanted to make it an insurance system and there was a ruling or judgment made that the US Government could not constitutionally set up an insurance program. You can talk about IOU’s or bonds which is meaningless IBO. SS is a big revenue generator for the government and it all gets spent plus more that is borrowed. So when we talk about increasing the SS payment we are talking about increasing taxes.
I am all for investing the money. I would like to see it invested in the S&P 500 index fund. Low maintenance cost and over the long term it will do well if the country does well. If the country does not do well, there are not many strategies that will work. Individual stocks can and do fail but the market has consistently gone up over the long term.
One thing that helps the system is more people working and immigration contributes to that. Birth control is the enemy of the SS system.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Interesting discussion. Let me say a few things I have learned over the years. SS is a welfare program.

I would be most interested in to whom you owe what you have ‘learned’. Nevertheless, the Social Security program was created during the time coming into our countries great depression. Laborers were seeing poverty for the first time, and reports of suicide related to stock market loss was not uncommon. A 50% poverty rate for the elderly was noted.

The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this Act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.[[3]]
(History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia)
I suppose my biggest disagreement with the use of the word “welfare” would be the connotation that welfare would not have been due a retired laborer when the bottom fell out from the top, caused of course from the crash of the stock market!~ In other words, in the connotation of laziness.

 

[dochawk]

I always find it incredible how people in the USA debate these issues imagining that how things are and have been done in that country are the only possibilities.

I find it incredible that people think that’s how we think, given the discussions, public and private, that we actually have . . .

It is rare for a US discussion on social security or welfare not to include how things are done elsewhere . . .

This was definitely true at the inception of the program. And it may be true for many of the disabled. But for those who are over 62, many are collecting at least a portion of what they had been payroll taxed.

A portion?

The math is quite clear that the “typical” recipient received pack what was paid in with interest and then so.

Also, built into the economic theory behind SS is the fact that increasing population and productivity make it possible to pay each and every generation more than it paid in. If population goes down, this math tanks . . .

SS is a welfare program.

In part, but not entirely.

As I explained above, there is indeed a “bias” towards the lower wage worker subsidized by higher earners. The middle tear does neither.

And though not separated, your SS payments have two parts: the retirement system (the bulk), and the social insurance for disability and dependents. (Left to me, I’d separatethetwdo entirely).

When SS was set up some wanted to make it an insurance system and there was a ruling or judgment made that the US Government could not constitutionally set up an insurance program.

I suspect that you’re either confusing SS with either the first income tax prior to the amendment for it, which was indeed struck down, or the USSC ruling that upheld Obamacare solely as an income tax.

You can talk about IOU’s or bonds which is meaningless IBO. SS is a big revenue generator for the government and it all gets spent plus more that is borrowed.

No. Just, no.

SS takes in money that it will need later. It has to do something with it. Simply locking green sheets of paper in vaults would be stupid. (OK, “stupid” isn’t a strong enough word.

It has to go somewhere.

We do (foolishly) invest it solely in treasury notes, but this isn’t the same thing as the government spending the social security funds on other things. It would have sold bonds elsewhere (although the interest rate would be higher without that mandatory purchase by SS).

hawk

 

[FiveLinden]

I find it incredible that people think that’s how we think, given the discussions, public and private, that we actually have . . .

It is rare for a US discussion on social security or welfare not to include how things are done elsewhere . . .

Glad to hear it. But didn’t see it in this thread, or many others on CAF.

 

[Theo2]

I would be most interested in to whom you owe what you have ‘learned’.

I read it. Did you know that they more or less guaranteed that the SS tax would not exceed 1%. I used to work with a guy who had that newspaper article at his work station. He was a union employee. I am sorry the word welfare offends you but that is what it is. All the promised are just that, and if the Government crashes who knows what will happen. The assets of the government are buildings, land and ships etc. But what will it all be worth?

Laborers were seeing poverty for the first time,

Hardly!
No doubt greed of those who leveraged the market and caused the crash hurt everyone. Now we have the government doing the leveraging. I am hopeful that we are smart enough to chart our way forward. In God we trust!

 

[dochawk]

Glad to hear it. But didn’t see it in this thread, or many others on CAF.

I personally referenced Chile’s SS system starting at post #15 above . . .

Did you know that they more or less guaranteed that the SS tax would not exceed 1%.

I think you’ve got third-hand urban legend here.

That was the initial rate, and the administration knew very well that it wouldn’t be enough. Their logic was that once the system was in place, noone would ever be able to take it away.

So yes, they knew, but no they didn’t “guarantee”.

(actually, this isn’t all that different from the pet “economists” used for destroying the old insurance system and imposing this unworkable one were thinking, as evidenced by later recorded comments. I used to think the claim that it was really a scheme to force imposition of single-payer was a conspiracy theory, but I"m having trouble with the evidence and unavoidable conclusions about planners who see it as “pulling it over on the voters” . . .)

hawk

 

[Theo2]

Did you know that they more or less guaranteed that the SS tax would not exceed 1%.

The rate was less than 1% maybe even 1/4% initially. I agree the government didn’t guarantee but politicians talked that way. They may have known. They certainly know it would make people dependent on the government. Anyone living on just SS now are below the poverty level, are they not?

 

[dochawk]

SS was meant as part, not all, of financial stability.

It was initially 1% each for employer and employee (all of which actually falls on the employee, but that’ as discussion for elsewhere).

There is no “may” have known it wouldn’t be enough; there are plenty of (non-lunatics) accounts by those that were there and part of the discussion.

No, it wasn’t about government dependency (although it was definitely socialistic, and part of a push for such programs).

It is not enough to, by itself, raise someone above the poverty level–nor has there been a time in history where it was supposed to.

It meant the difference between abject poverty and poverty for those paste age where they could work. While benefits originally started at 65, the majority of the workforce did not reach that age.

hawk

 

[DENNYINMI]

I am sorry the word welfare offends you but that is what it is.

Not simply offensive but regarding the safety net of social security the term “welfare” as you equate it does not apply.

When one can be wealthy and qualify for it at a certain age or by having a disability (for good reason) it is not welfare.

 

[Theo2]

Look up the definition of welfare. You seem to not like the truth and want to make you own definition. You are not alone. Politicians will not call it that either. The fact that wealthy people receive benefits stem from the fact that everyone in a SS covered job must pay and to maintain support for the program everyone receives benefits.

 

[DENNYINMI]

The fact that wealthy people receive benefits stem from the fact that everyone in a SS covered job must pay and to maintain support for the program everyone receives benefits.

I respectfully agree with this, but in that summation alone it doesn’t qualify for the definition of being welfare. The wealthy would not qualify for welfare.

 

[Theo2]

You have a definition of welfare that does not match what I read when I looked it up. Regardless, the program was approved with that word because it could not be an insurance program. Of course, now anything goes. This is my last comment as I would rather discuss issues about our faith.