Do we need a social security program? (now with poll!)

[Little Raven]

This is an ideological question, and is not the same as "should we abolish SS," because that would entail dealing with 70 years of history and other real-world complications. This is about the abstract view.

Is social security a necessity? Or even a good idea?

Obviously, as Nade pointed out, people thought that it was back in the 30s. But is that true today? Do we have a compelling reason to have it beyond the fact that it already exists? Would the lack of it create a social problem that is harmful to the nation as a whole?

Would old people starve? Should we care if they do? If we could simply wipe the slant clean, should we?

[Exodor]

What's interesting to me is that Social Security isn't just for old people, nor does it only benefit those who have paid into the system.

My wife works with disabled adults, and the bulk of the income those adults receive is from SS. Most of them have never worked a day in their life, mainly because they're totally unable to work.

Scrapping SS would mean either throwing these people on the street or creating some other program to provide for them.

[jblank]

Do we need Social Security? My answer is yes.

Should the government take all that SS money out of my check and force me to invest it, their way? I dont think so. I believe that the contributer should get to invest 1/2 their debited Social Security amount, if they choose to do so, in an alternative manner. The money HAS TO be invested, and cant be spent or just put in a savings account or a CD. It has to go in at least an IRA, and must stay there until retirement age, under penalty of forfeiture back into the SS system.

We cant just stop SS, but I do think people need to have another way to invest at least a portion of that money.

[Defiant]

Is social security a necessity? Or even a good idea?

Well, IMO, government has two (out of many) conlicting goals: One, to get people to spend money (to keep the economy happy), and another to get people to save money (so they can afford to sustain themselves on their own money, rather than on the government's.) Having a forced retirement plan of some sort is a good idea, but what we have now is the worst of all worlds.

Obviously, as Nade pointed out, people thought that it was back in the 30s. But is that true today?

IIRC, people thought it was a good idea in the thirties because the Stock Market crash had wiped out their savings.

Can a stock market crash of that magnitude happen today?

Most of them have never worked a day in their life, mainly because they're totally unable to work.

I thought you can only recieve benefits from SS if you've already paid into it.

Scrapping SS would mean either throwing these people on the street or creating some other program to provide for them.

I think I'd rather create another program that would actually be called a spending/welfare program and that isn't funded by a regressive tax.

[Little Raven]

Can a stock market crash of that magnitude happen today?

I honestly don't know. But couldn't a dollar crash wipe out savings just as effectively? Because lots of reputable economists are writing about that these days. Some are even suggesting that it may be necessary in order to handle the government debt load. Couldn't rampant inflation destroy savings just as easily as stock market crash?

I thought you can only recieve benefits from SS if you've already paid into it.

That's true in general, but disability is a special case, I think. But it's a hard list to get onto. Lots of the NAMBLA people I know have had to hire lawyers to get their mentally ill relatives through the SS red tape.

[Defiant]

Couldn't rampant inflation destroy savings just as easily as stock market crash?

Absolutely.

[noxiousdog]

Yes a stock market crash like 29 could happen again.

Yes, some form of forced savings program should be mandated. However, it should leave that money in the hands of it's owners such that there is obvious and direct accountability to the managers of said money. IE, instead of getting contributing to a nebulous pool and getting 'some' back, the amount and interest rate can be tracked over the duration.

No, I don't have a problem with limiting the instruments selected, and in fact, I'd be perfectly ok with only allowing the purchase of US Treasury Bills and/or local municipal bonds.

[Exodor]

Most of them have never worked a day in their life, mainly because they're totally unable to work.

I thought you can only recieve benefits from SS if you've already paid into it.

Nope. These are adults with severe physical and mental challenges. In some cases, they're unable to feed themselves, yet they rececive SS income.

Scrapping SS would mean either throwing these people on the street or creating some other program to provide for them.

I think I'd rather create another program that would actually be called a spending/welfare program and that isn't funded by a regressive tax.

How would you fund it?

[Fireball]

It would be very difficult to have a Black Tuesday type crash today because there are major, major safety valves now built into all of our financial speculation markets. Part of the problem in 1929 was once the market started crashing, there was no way to stop it. We have solid means of halting all trading, limiting call volume and whatnot today which did not exist in 1929.

The devaluation of the dollar through massive deficit spending by the Federal government is the greater threat today, not a stock crash.

[noxiousdog]

It would be very difficult to have a Black Tuesday type crash today because there are major, major safety valves now built into all of our financial speculation markets. Part of the problem in 1929 was once the market started crashing, there was no way to stop it. We have solid means of halting all trading, limiting call volume and whatnot today which did not exist in 1929.

The devaluation of the dollar through massive deficit spending by the Federal government is the greater threat today, not a stock crash.

The October 1929 crash was only part of the decline.

The peak was actually made in August, declined 10% by the end of September. There was a 10% rebound, and then the 33% crash.

However, over the next two years, it declined -another-75%.

While the single day crash was bad and is unlikely to happen again, a 75% decline over a period of years -can- happen.

[Tareeq]

Yes. Society is best served by forcing people to save.

This answer betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what social security is.

[Padre]

Yes. Society is best served by forcing people to save.

This answer betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what social security is.

Then please correct it, Tareeq, O Fountain of SS enlightenment .

[Tareeq]

Then please correct it, Tareeq, O Fountain of SS enlightenment .

Social security is not saving, padawan. Social security is income redistribution from the poor to the rich. Every penny of social security, as we discussed in last week's thread on the topic, goes into the general government revenue, and is spent immediately. It is replaced with an IOU (a government bond) promising to tax future generations to repay the largesse.

Moreover, social security is the most regressive tax in the land. The first $85,000 (or so) of a worker's income is taxed at a flat 15% rate, while income above that threshold is tax-free. It taxes only wages (the bulk of income for the poor and middle class) rather than investment income. Donald Trump pays a much lower percentage of his income in FICA than I do, yet he will collect just as much if not more. The benefits are paid based on contribution to the system (to that magic $85K threshold) so the better off also receive more income from what is sold to the unenlightened as a supplement for the needy old and disabled.

Finally, social security is less a "saving" plan than an actuarial spin at the roulette wheel. A taxpayer who dies at age 64 and leaves no widow receives nothing, nor does his or her estate. In general, return on "investment" for those lucky enough to live past 65 is miserable, as the Galveston experiment has demonstrated empirically.

The better answer would have been "Yes. We should provide a pension to the elderly." As it stands, this poll is broken, just like the social security system.

[Defiant]

I think I'd rather create another program that would actually be called a spending/welfare program and that isn't funded by a regressive tax.

How would you fund it?

The way (almost) everything else in government is funded, maybe?

[noxiousdog]

Tareeq, while it is regressive, those that are taxed at the max will only see a monthly benefit equal to those that are paying 66% of the max. Likewise, there is a minimum benefit roughly equal to the tax on a 23K income.

Furthermore, social security incomes are now also taxed (aren't our congressmen brilliant), so all of Donald Trumps social security check is taxed at 33.5% whereas none of Farmer Joe's will be.

That being said, it's still regressive, and a terrible implementation of a 'savings' program.

[Blackhawk]

I thought you can only recieve benefits from SS if you've already paid into it.

There are two kinds of SS for the disabled. SS Disability is for those who have paid in. They receive benefits based on their previous income/payments. SSI is for those who have not paid in, or not paid in a certain minumum period of time. They receive a flat rate. It is a bit more complicated than that, but that's the idea.

As someone else said, it is indeed hard to get into it. It took me nearly three years to get approved (for both, for what it is worth).

[Little Raven]

This answer betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what social security is.

Point noted. I don't think I can edit the poll, but I'll see if one of the mods can.

How does "Yes. Society is best served by providing for those unable to provide for themselves." sound?

The poll is supposed to be about the concept of social security, certainly not our current implementation of it.

[Tareeq]

As someone else said, it is indeed hard to get into it. It took me nearly three years to get approved (for both, for what it is worth).

That's about right. Another way SS is broken is that the disability rules require people to litigate for what they ought to receive by right. (I sometimes take SSD cases.) It's scandalous how often truly disabled people are turned away, while layabouts and slackers assisted by lawyers get benefits. (None of my clients are included in that number. I only dabble and I make little enough on it that I don't get pangs about turning away a loafer.)

The system is made to be gamed. I remember an ex-prisoner who had no trouble cutting hair for "gain time" to get out of the joint who had no problem turning around and applying for SSI because his hands hurt too much to cut hair in the real world. Cutting hair was good enough for parole, but not good enough for him to earn his living.

Many of those genuinely disabled who are turned away are too passive or uneducated to seek help. The government told them no, so what can they do? God only knows how they get by.

[Defiant]

Re: The Stock Market

What happens when the baby boomer generation retires and starts pulling their money out of the stock market?

Also, IIRC, the problem in the 30s wasn't just the Stock Market Crashed, but that a lot of people had pulled money out of their savings or went into debt trying to get in on the stock market, thus meaning they were that worse off after the crash.]

Not that we ever put our money into foolish investments these days or have large consumer debt these days.

[Kraken]

I had to vote Yes, after considering a philosophical No. For all its flaws, SS enabled my parents to live out their old age comfortably and without relying on the generosity of their kids (neither of whom were in any position to support them) after my dad lost all of their money in a bad investment, and simultaneously lost his health. Being child-free myself, and unable to save money as aggressively as I need to, I am reluctantly counting on it myself. Too many people reach old age with little or no financial security, whether through their own fault or not, to think that personal responsibility would work out.

[Grifman]

The whole purpose of Social Security is to be a safety net. It is not supposed to be the sole purpose of retirement funding, but it is supposed to undergird what people save on their own. Unfortunately too many people rely upon it totally but that's a separate issue. I don't think you want the safety net riding on how well the stock market does in a given year. SS has been responsible for keeping many elderly out of poverty and for that it should be applauded.

Companies are already pushing investment risk to employees as it is, converting defined benefit plans (where your retirement is a fixed amount) to defined contribution plans (where your retirement depends upon what you/the company contribute and how well your investments do). Let SS be the "safe" portion of my retirement portfolio, while the risk rides with my 401(k) and pension. We don't need more risk in this area, IMO.

[Zarathud]

If you think that you're an island unto yourself, think again.

Like Tareeq says, Social Security is an actuarial system -- the Old Age Survivors Disability Insurance (OASDI). It's insurance as a safety net, which is why the old school Democrats consented to the extremely regressive FICA tax on wages (which pays for OASDI). You share the risk during your lifetime by paying premiums. If you are disabled, survive your spouse or reach old age then you receive payments. Your estate receives a minimal payment (to bury you). It's not "welfare" because you paid for it, so Republicans were ok with the program.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income -- a pure safety net welfare system for the disabled.

The rate of return will be miserable, like any insurance system. You don't buy insurance hoping to hit the lotto, you buy it because you're afraid the worst may happen and need a low-risk way to cover the downside (death or disability). The benefit from Social Security is that you get something to live on so long as the system survives and you meet the eligibility criteria. As Grifman recognizes, you could have nothing if you put your money in the stock market (a 1,000% return after a 99% loss still get you pennies on the dollar). Only the serious demographic shift from the Aging of America turns the OASDI/Social Security system on its head.

What politicians have been unwilling to do is to increase the retirement age or lower benefits -- even when the demographics of longer life expectancy and lower employed persons showed that a change was necessary for the survival of the system. Some changes were made -- you pay more now, you receive less benefit if you retire younger and the minimum age was slowly increased for the young. But the demographics still show the system can't fund itself and the additional revenue necessary to create a surplus or reserve have been spent to cover the US budget deficit since the 1980s. More than an entire generation's worth of additional collections were squandered and higher taxes are virtually guaranteed as a result. Some of the money was also paid out to current retirees as cost-of-living increases, too.

The Democrats were responsible for the last reforms to fall short of the mark and being unwilling to accept a much higher retirement age. The Republicans were responsible for the willingness to spend the Social Security surplus on Treasury Bills to fund the deficit caused by increased military spending and massive tax cuts.

IMO the Republican goal of its "Social Security reform" is to prop up the stock market and money managers (like 401(k)s) with savings accounts and make young working America's long-term personal economic success or failure directly tied to stock market performance. Allowing people to pay less into the system guarantees and speeds up Social Security's collapse, allowing the Republicans to kill off yet another "big government welfare" program.

There's a huge political risk, but I'm sure that the Republican leadership is gambling that self-interested Baby Boomers will be split between lower taxes and Social Security. The Republican rhetoric of low taxes and pro-stock market would ally wealthy Baby Boomers with middle-class Generation X/Y and possibly create a new, long-term "Republican majority." If a Democrat wins, they'd be beholden to raise taxes and reinforce the "tax and spend liberal" stereotype. The other alternative is for a Republican tax increase, most likely some sort of national sales tax (which was the original Social Security plan pioneered by Newt Gingrich in 1984), but those ideas were suggested by now-marginalized fiscal conservatives who clearly have no voice in a Republican Party led by President G.W. Bush and company.

[Yankeeman84]

Social Security is the most stupidest thing we have ever done!

I get sooo damn sick and tired of looking at my paycheck and seeing money taken out that I will never see again.

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarentees us "free money" when we get either 62 or 65.

It is a crock of shit just like governement sponsored health care.

Sorry to sound like a hate monkey!

[Grifman]

Social Security is the most stupidest thing we have ever done!

Why? Care to elaborate?

I get sooo damn sick and tired of looking at my paycheck and seeing money taken out that I will never see again.

Why? Are you terminally ill, or do you plan on committing suicide before age 65?

There is nothing in the Constitution that guarentees us "free money" when we get either 62 or 65.

Hold it, I just thought you said you were tired of seeing money taken out. And now you say SS is free money. Dammit, now which is it?

It is a crock of shit just like governement sponsored health care.

Ain't going to touch that one.

Sorry to sound like a hate monkey!

No, you just sound like a mixed up monkey who contradicts himself

Grifman

[Yankeeman84]

SS is stupid cause:

#1 It cannot last and will not last.

#2 It takes sooo much money to keep up and it has been projected bankrupt by the 2030's (hence, I will not see MY money again!) It would have to last into the 2050's in order for me to see MY money again.

#3 Even if it was good, it does not keep up with the everyday cost of living....practically if you live off SS, you are living below the poverty line!

#4 Even if it was good, it only pays $500 for a funeral. WTF? An average funeral costs several thousand....THANKS GOVT!!!!! WOOHOO YEAH!

#5 I do not dig keeping other Americans up with my hard earned money.

#6 Look how much money the govt would save if there was no SS. It could help pay off our ever increasing deficit which is what now? $400 billion and rising? and the govt can still afford to hand out paychecks?

I dont like to see the govt waste MY money on a blood sucking leech (SS). SS is a money magnet and since it is OUR money, dont you think you would like to invest it how you wish and guarentee yourself that you will see it again instead of giving the govt a bi-weekly donation?

SS is free money. It is another tax on the young and middle aged! Hey, I lose decent money to SS per check and there is nothing I can do about it except sit back and hope and pray I will see it again in my senior years (I am not holding my breath)!

Yeah, lets dont talk about HC. I might have to take a seditive.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness ------ Not a gov't paycheck!

Fellas, SS WILL NOT LAST!

If SS was not taken out of your check, figure up how much money you would get extra per year!

[Tareeq]

#5 I do not dig keeping other Americans up with my hard earned money.

[The Mad Hatter]

Here in Canada we have the Canada Pension Plan, contributions to which come from both employee and employer (half and half). The amount you eventually receive is based on what was contributed, topping out at a certain level. It begins at age 60 but is limited based on whether you're still working (not sure of the exact mechanics). We also have the General Income Supplement, which every senior gets at age 65 regardless of their work history. It's not a lot of money in either case and there's the same concern about longterm viability, but I think the benefits much outweigh the costs. Seniors are among the most vulnerable of society, and they've already given so much back over the years. Giving them something to survive on seems like basic justice to me.

[The Mad Hatter]

Yeah, lets dont talk about HC. I might have to take a seditive.

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness ------ Not a gov't paycheck!

Fellas, SS WILL NOT LAST!

If SS was not taken out of your check, figure up how much money you would get extra per year!

You sound young and healthy. One day you'll be old and sick, and you'll have a rather different perspective on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Peacedog]

I'd gladly change the poll Little Raven, but are you worried about invalidating your results? If you still want me to, tell me specifically what you want. Or, you could have another go at this thread and I could lock this for you. Your call.

[Austin]

I voted no, but on a idealogical ground. I prefer a concept where people plan ahead and invest to take care of themselves in the future. Where people's families care for the disabled and elderly in their family. etc... However, this is not the case so I do see a need to it on some level.

I do feel for the needy and disabled and such. I just wish that family and charity would take care of it and that there wasn't a need for government's wasteful intervention.

[Little Raven]

I'd gladly change the poll Little Raven, but are you worried about invalidating your results?

Godhugh already changed it for me. (that's what I like about this place....such great service... ) I'm not too worried about invalidating the results, because I think Tareeq's comment really was correct. My original "Yes" answer did a poor job of representing both the concept of social security, which I really wanted to discuss, and the reality of our social security, which I was trying to avoid. The new Yes answer is much better.

I can only hope that the people who voted before the change read paid more attention to the text of the first message and lacked a certain lawyer's obsession with detail.

[Exodor]

I voted no, but on a idealogical ground. I prefer a concept where people plan ahead and invest to take care of themselves in the future. Where people's families care for the disabled and elderly in their family. etc... However, this is not the case so I do see a need to it on some level.

I do feel for the needy and disabled and such. I just wish that family and charity would take care of it and that there wasn't a need for government's wasteful intervention.

Haven't voted in the poll, because I'm so torn on the issue.

I support the basic idea of a social safety net for the elderly, infirm and disabled. There will always be members of society who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are unable to provide for themselves. I believe its our responsibility as a society to provide basic needs for these folks.

However...

Social Security is a huge pyrmaid scheme that cannot possibly last and seems largely unneccessary. I'm a healthy, 32-year old male working full-time. If I cannot figure out how to save for my own retirement, that's my own damn fault - why should the governnment provide anything for me at 65 simply because I'm too stupid to save? I've seen far too many who game the system to blindly support SS and it's many related programs. Social Security needs to be dramatically scaled back.



On a reltated note, Bush today said no tax hike for Social Security

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Following a meeting with key advisers, President Bush promised Thursday he would not raise payroll taxes to help pay for overhauling Social Security.

"We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem," Bush told reporters during an Oval Office meeting with Social Security experts.

The White House said this week the transition costs might be borrowed, but Bush said he would not prejudge any solution and would work with members of Congress.

Bush did not directly address whether the nation can afford to borrow to deal with the costs of changing to a partially private account-based system, which experts have estimated at $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years.

But now, the program is facing "unfunded liabilities of about $11 trillion," the president added, noting he's suggested a new way to help shore up its funds.

"I think it's vital to consider allowing younger workers, on a voluntary basis, to set aside some of their own payroll tax in personal accounts as part of a comprehensive solution to dealing with the Social Security issue," Bush said.

How, exactly, does taking away money flowing into the system solve the shortfall? Sure, it would reduce the premiums paid by SS down the road - but it seems it would exacerbate the issue, not solve it.

[Little Raven]

Haven't voted in the poll, because I'm so torn on the issue.

If it helps, remember that this poll is about the concept of social security, not Social Security as it exists in this country. This is basically asking the question of whether or not we should take from those who can produce to provide for those who cannot. It's not about the details of any one system, and most certainly not about whether or not our implementation of social security is a good one.

[Vegetable Man]

SS is one of the governments programs I haven't given enough thought, but of course, I lean towards it's elimination. I think a better system would be geared towards, like I thnk Nade mentioned, turning it into a welfare system for those who need it. No one wants to enter their old age living off the bare bones provided by government programs, hopefully that would provide enough incentive for people save more on their own, while still providing a safety net for those who really need it.

The idea of someone like my Dad, who's going to collect not only his military pension, but also all of the money he's saved making his more than decent salary, as well as social security, well, it doesn't really sit well with me.

[Grifman]

SS is stupid cause:

#1 It cannot last and will not last.

Actually it can with some adjustments here and there.

#2 It takes sooo much money to keep up and it has been projected bankrupt by the 2030's (hence, I will not see MY money again!) It would have to last into the 2050's in order for me to see MY money again.

No, see my comment above.

#3 Even if it was good, it does not keep up with the everyday cost of living....practically if you live off SS, you are living below the poverty line!

You're pretty confused here. SS has an cost of living adjustment, in fact one many economists think is too high. So you are clearly wrong here. If you mean you can't live off SS, then yes that is true but it was never intended to be lived off of. It was to be a security net, a supplment to what you save yourself. So again, you are wrong because you don't understand it's purpose.

#4 Even if it was good, it only pays $500 for a funeral. WTF? An average funeral costs several thousand....THANKS GOVT!!!!! WOOHOO YEAH!

See above, it's a supplement.

#5 I do not dig keeping other Americans up with my hard earned money.

But others will keep you up with their hard earned money. We all pay in, we all get benefits. What's wrongw with that?

#6 Look how much money the govt would save if there was no SS. It could help pay off our ever increasing deficit which is what now? $400 billion and rising? and the govt can still afford to hand out paychecks?

Now you're talking crazy. How can the govt save money if they are not collecting the SS tax. You say you want to keep your money. So then the govt won't have the expense of SS, but it won't have the tax money either. It's a net wash. You've taken away both the revenue and the expense. Yes, the gov't "saved" the expense, but it "lost" the tax revenue, overall no change.

I dont like to see the govt waste MY money on a blood sucking leech (SS). SS is a money magnet and since it is OUR money, dont you think you would like to invest it how you wish and guarentee yourself that you will see it again instead of giving the govt a bi-weekly donation?

I will see it, when I retire.

SS is free money. It is another tax on the young and middle aged! Hey, I lose decent money to SS per check and there is nothing I can do about it except sit back and hope and pray I will see it again in my senior years (I am not holding my breath)!

Why do you think you won't see it? If you die early you won't see anything of the rest of your money either, so it's all irrelevant anyway, right?

If SS was not taken out of your check, figure up how much money you would get extra per year!

And figure out how you are going to retire if you didn't save it and invest it wisely and didn't get unlucky with your investments.

Grifman

[Kraken]

I know this thread isn't supposed to be about our actual SS program, but rather the concept of SS. Yet it has strayed. So I'll chip in the observation that our system is quite sustainable with fairly minor adjustments. All that's lacking is political will. I encourage interested readers to google "Moynihan plan" for the pros and cons of specific changes, but here it is in a nutshell:

-Increase the cap on wages subject to the SS tax;
-Raise the retirement age slightly to reflect improvements in longevity;
-Change the way the Consumer Price Index is calculated to slightly reduce the annual SS cost of living increase;
-Reduce the payroll tax rate by 2%, and let workers contribute 15% of their payroll tax to individual retirement accounts.

I would also add a means test to phase out benefits for the wealthiest Americans. But the Moynihan plan is effectively dead in the Bush administration. Today's news that Mr. Bush ruled out a tax hike to fund social security is not encouraging.

Three years after his Social Security commission issued recommendations on how to repair the system, Bush remained noncommittal yesterday on how he would pay for the estimated $2 trillion cost of revamping Social Security, but vast new borrowing seemed increasingly likely.

''I will not prejudge any solution," Bush said in the Oval Office after meeting with the Social Security trustees who submit an annual report on the state of the program's funding. But he went on to say, ''We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem."

What is it with this president and debt? Let's hope that his statement is just an opening negotiating position, and that Congress won't stand for it.

[Yankeeman84]

Grif, NOBODY wants to bloody their hands with SS cause it means votes and blame.

#2 It takes sooo much money to keep up and it has been projected bankrupt by the 2030's (hence, I will not see MY money again!) It would have to last into the 2050's in order for me to see MY money again.


No, see my comment above.

YES! Economists have been saying this for years and ever year it looks like reality. It takes a shitload of $$$ to keep up. SS would have to last another 46 years before I will be able to draw fully from it and the 2030's are just 26 years away! Do the math.

Talking to several elderly people on this, SS hardly keeps them above water. You know, some people actually live off SS cause they have to! They did not invest their money wisely nor tried to. It isn't my fault that they didn't do it and we (the wounger generation) are the ones that make up for it and flip the bill. I dont see how SS can be too high since so many seniors really dont need it and the ones that need it dont get it. Again, this is another fault. "A security net", whatever, its not much of one. Talking to some seniors, the money is spent before it gets there. To some, it is not enought to pay the bills and have any left over to buy food. So how do I not understand its purpose? Did you actually talk to any seniors about this?

I do not see how all of us get benefits of SS. I dont. You dont.

The gov't can save bookoo if they dont offer this. I would bet that they would rather lose a bit of revenue to get than big burden off their shoulders. They are not making any money off SS, they are losing. Every year, more money is plunked into this dinosaur and the debt grows. Supplement or not, this is going bankrupt. It is a dead end street. I am still not for it cause we are not guarenteed money from our governement. SS is just like HC, you are fucked either way you go!

Whatever, its stupid, irrational, and a leech to our children! No wonder so many people in the younger generation are against this!

[Tareeq]

Whatever, its stupid, irrational, and a leech to our children! No wonder so many people in the younger generation are against this!

Why should we care about the opinions of people who don't vote?

[The Mad Hatter]

Talking to several elderly people on this, SS hardly keeps them above water. You know, some people actually live off SS cause they have to! They did not invest their money wisely nor tried to. It isn't my fault that they didn't do it and we (the wounger generation) are the ones that make up for it and flip the bill.

So the way the older generation fed, clothed and educated you is irrelevant? You resent spending a few dollars (and it is only a few, in relative terms) to help them, because you think you won't get to benefit from it anyway when you're that old. Charming.

I dont see how SS can be too high since so many seniors really dont need it and the ones that need it dont get it. Again, this is another fault. "A security net", whatever, its not much of one. Talking to some seniors, the money is spent before it gets there. To some, it is not enought to pay the bills and have any left over to buy food. So how do I not understand its purpose? Did you actually talk to any seniors about this?

So you know seniors who are struggling to get by even with social security. I'm puzzled how that becomes an argument for removing it.

I do not see how all of us get benefits of SS. I dont. You dont.

You benefit by not having your society's most vulnerable members die off when they're no longer of use. Again, you might be grateful one day that that's not how things are done.

[Kraken]

SS would have to last another 46 years before I will be able to draw fully from it and the 2030's are just 26 years away! Do the math.

You succomb to the common fallacy of projecting current trends forward as if they cannot change. Of course they will change. Nobody wants to take the political hit for cutting benefits (in the logic of Washington, restraining future growth = cutting) and raising taxes. Yet both of those will happen. If the consequences of adjusting the program are politically dangerous, think of the fallout for letting it collapse.

Talking to several elderly people on this, SS hardly keeps them above water. You know, some people actually live off SS cause they have to!

Again: Thanks to SS, my parents had a secure, if spartan, retirement after my father lost his investments and his health. SS disability checks allowed me to get through college. My mother-in-law still survives on SS checks. Even if I never collect a nickel myself, I have already benefited greatly from SS. Maybe you have parents, too. Maybe they aren't rich. Maybe you won't have to support them in old age because they can get SS payments.

And I will collect my share when my turn rolls around. It won't be as generous as the benefits that my parents' generation enjoyed, and I dearly hope that I won't need it as my primary support. But I can't possibly save enough money to retire in any kind of comfort. I'm counting on SS. If you are smart, you will insist that it had damned well better be there when your turn comes around, too. Repeating the "it won't be there for me" shibboleth is just buying into political scaremongering. It is self-defeating. Wake up.