SS does not add one cent to the deficit ... but it sure does add a lot to the FICA tax!
LOWERING retirement age to 60 will reduce unemployment 4-6 points ... and LOWERING retirement age to 16 will eliminate unemployment altogether - everybody will be retired!
Raising the cap on income to $500,000 will keep SS solvent for 100 years ... and eliminating the cap altogether will keep SS solvent until those who earn more lose the incentive to do so and start cutting back, reducing the FICA tax base.
The fact of the matter is that thanks to the Baby Boom and Roe v. Wade, there's a whole lot more of "us" than there are of "them" - which usually spells trouble for any Ponzi scheme. Which is why at nearly 61 years old, I intend to keep on working until I drop, because if I count on Social Security, I'm probably going to be sadly disappointed somewhere down the line.
1. It is true that SS doesn't add to the deficit. It is also true that it is paid for through a FICA tax. What is so wrong with that. I've paid it all my life and don't feel a bit guilty about accepting a SS check. If you do, then turn it down.
2. Lower the retirement age to 16? If you're trying to make a point with such a ridiculous statement, I have to wonder about your sanity.
3. Raising the cap so the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the working class is unfair and they'll stop making money and getting richer? No one could possibly believe that. In the 50's there was a 90% tax on upper incomes, and it didn't stop people from trying to get even richer.
4. Surely you don't think forcing people to have unwanted babies is the cure for funding SS!
5. No one is forcing you to retire for any reason. Work as long as you want to, but stop the whining about SS.
It's true that you've paid into social security all your working life, but you were never paying for your own retirement. You were paying for the retirees who were already drawing a SS check. Your retirement will be paid for by the next generation (of which there are considerably fewer - see Re: 4., below). This is the Ponzi aspect of social security.
Re: 2.
If lowering the retirement age makes such great sense economically, why did France raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 last Novmember? To increase their unemployment rate 4-6 percent?
It's going to be bad enough when those of us born in 1950 and earlier start drawing social security in a few years. Why dump us into the pool early, in the midst of a recession? That's two to six more years of straining an already strained system.
My argument about lowering the retirement age to 16 was argumentum ad absurdum.
Re: 3.
In and of itself, lifting the cap on social security probably won't force the producers to stop producing. But at some point, when the moochers and looters so outnumber the producers that it breaks the back of the producers, something's got to give. At that point, Atlas will shrug.
Re: 4.
My point was to describe, not prescribe, the demographics of the early 21st Century. At this point, we couldn't change the numbers even if we wanted to. The simple fact of the matter is that 40 million potential workers never made it out of the womb after 1973. Wanted or unwanted, that would have amounted to a lot of FICA tax to pay for your SS benefits.
When social security started in 1935, the life expectancy of the average American male was around 60. So if you were lucky enough to draw SS, it wouldn't have been for very long. Now we hearty American men live on average well into our seventies. So fewer workers will be paying for the benefits of more retirees for a longer period of time than was ever envisioned. How's that going to work?
5. You're right; fortunately, there's no mandatory retirement age for paralegals. But if I don't intend to draw social security, how is what I've said "whining"? It's like Harry Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell 'em the truth, and they think it's hell."
1. If conservatives are so worried about there being fewer workers to pay into the system, why do they keep shipping American jobs to other countries? SS is not a "Ponzi scheme" and is much healthier than conservatives want Americans to believe.
2. I don't know or care why France raised their retirement age. And I agree that your argument was absurd.
3. Paying the same rate as workers will not make the rich stop trying to get richer. As for "Atlas will shrug", even Ayn Rand accepted SS and Medicare.
4. Life expectancy is indeed getting longer -- for the rich. For the working class, it is still far too short. And yes, I know you can find anecdotal evidence that some workers live a long time -- that happened years ago too.
5. Sounded like whining to me to say you don't believe you'll get your SS benefits. Removing the cap (or raising it) will insure benefits are safe far into the future (long after you and I are dead).
To curious Texan: the Ponzi aspect of SS is exactly the same as the Ponzi aspect of any insurance policy be it home owners, vehicle, life, etc. Pay offs are made from funds collected and often those funds are from newer purchasers of the product. Ponzi only enters into the equation when the incoming money is removed from the system rather than being re-invested, i.e., is stolen. The problem with SS is demographics which have been known since the last SS commission under Reagan. If Bush and the conservatives hadn't talked about privatization (a way to kill SS) but had done the work of the earlier commission SS would be just fine.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
don't you just love this...?
ReplyDeleteSS does not add one cent to the deficit ... but it sure does add a lot to the FICA tax!
ReplyDeleteLOWERING retirement age to 60 will reduce unemployment 4-6 points ... and LOWERING retirement age to 16 will eliminate unemployment altogether - everybody will be retired!
Raising the cap on income to $500,000 will keep SS solvent for 100 years ... and eliminating the cap altogether will keep SS solvent until those who earn more lose the incentive to do so and start cutting back, reducing the FICA tax base.
The fact of the matter is that thanks to the Baby Boom and Roe v. Wade, there's a whole lot more of "us" than there are of "them" - which usually spells trouble for any Ponzi scheme. Which is why at nearly 61 years old, I intend to keep on working until I drop, because if I count on Social Security, I'm probably going to be sadly disappointed somewhere down the line.
1. It is true that SS doesn't add to the deficit. It is also true that it is paid for through a FICA tax. What is so wrong with that. I've paid it all my life and don't feel a bit guilty about accepting a SS check. If you do, then turn it down.
ReplyDelete2. Lower the retirement age to 16? If you're trying to make a point with such a ridiculous statement, I have to wonder about your sanity.
3. Raising the cap so the rich pay the same percentage of their income as the working class is unfair and they'll stop making money and getting richer? No one could possibly believe that. In the 50's there was a 90% tax on upper incomes, and it didn't stop people from trying to get even richer.
4. Surely you don't think forcing people to have unwanted babies is the cure for funding SS!
5. No one is forcing you to retire for any reason. Work as long as you want to, but stop the whining about SS.
Re: 1.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that you've paid into social security all your working life, but you were never paying for your own retirement. You were paying for the retirees who were already drawing a SS check. Your retirement will be paid for by the next generation (of which there are considerably fewer - see Re: 4., below). This is the Ponzi aspect of social security.
Re: 2.
If lowering the retirement age makes such great sense economically, why did France raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 last Novmember? To increase their unemployment rate 4-6 percent?
It's going to be bad enough when those of us born in 1950 and earlier start drawing social security in a few years. Why dump us into the pool early, in the midst of a recession? That's two to six more years of straining an already strained system.
My argument about lowering the retirement age to 16 was argumentum ad absurdum.
Re: 3.
In and of itself, lifting the cap on social security probably won't force the producers to stop producing. But at some point, when the moochers and looters so outnumber the producers that it breaks the back of the producers, something's got to give. At that point, Atlas will shrug.
Re: 4.
My point was to describe, not prescribe, the demographics of the early 21st Century. At this point, we couldn't change the numbers even if we wanted to. The simple fact of the matter is that 40 million potential workers never made it out of the womb after 1973. Wanted or unwanted, that would have amounted to a lot of FICA tax to pay for your SS benefits.
When social security started in 1935, the life expectancy of the average American male was around 60. So if you were lucky enough to draw SS, it wouldn't have been for very long. Now we hearty American men live on average well into our seventies. So fewer workers will be paying for the benefits of more retirees for a longer period of time than was ever envisioned. How's that going to work?
5. You're right; fortunately, there's no mandatory retirement age for paralegals. But if I don't intend to draw social security, how is what I've said "whining"? It's like Harry Truman said, "I don't give 'em hell. I just tell 'em the truth, and they think it's hell."
1. If conservatives are so worried about there being fewer workers to pay into the system, why do they keep shipping American jobs to other countries? SS is not a "Ponzi scheme" and is much healthier than conservatives want Americans to believe.
ReplyDelete2. I don't know or care why France raised their retirement age. And I agree that your argument was absurd.
3. Paying the same rate as workers will not make the rich stop trying to get richer. As for "Atlas will shrug", even Ayn Rand accepted SS and Medicare.
4. Life expectancy is indeed getting longer -- for the rich. For the working class, it is still far too short. And yes, I know you can find anecdotal evidence that some workers live a long time -- that happened years ago too.
5. Sounded like whining to me to say you don't believe you'll get your SS benefits. Removing the cap (or raising it) will insure benefits are safe far into the future (long after you and I are dead).
To curious Texan: the Ponzi aspect of SS is exactly the same as the Ponzi aspect of any insurance policy be it home owners, vehicle, life, etc. Pay offs are made from funds collected and often those funds are from newer purchasers of the product. Ponzi only enters into the equation when the incoming money is removed from the system rather than being re-invested, i.e., is stolen.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with SS is demographics which have been known since the last SS commission under Reagan. If Bush and the conservatives hadn't talked about privatization (a way to kill SS) but had done the work of the earlier commission SS would be just fine.