Is Social Security a good deal for workers? That’s the question the AP posed in an August 5 piece dredging up a very old argument against Social Security—that workers pay more into the program than they later get back—and presenting it as fresh news. Its lede:
People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It’s a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
Previous generations got a much better bargain, the AP reported, because payroll taxes were very low when the program started in the 1930s. The August 5 story rolled through the media, including the AARP’s blog and the Fox News blog, which headlined its post: “New retirees receiving less in Social Security than they paid in, marking historic shift.”
But the notion that people are not getting their money’s worth with Social Security has been around for about three decades. It’s revived by opponents whenever it seems there is a chance to privatize the system or cut benefits—experts on both sides of the debate believe that Social Security changes could be part of a grand political bargain on the deficit struck after the elections. And it’s revived even though the argument contains a faulty explanation of how the program works.
In 1995, another time when Social Security was under attack in Congress, here’s what a cover story in Time had to say:
Years before it collapses altogether—starting this year—the Social Security system will begin to be a bad deal for increasing numbers of those who do collect benefits. Until now, just about all recipients have got back the sum of their lifetime contributions, plus interest, with just a few years of retirement checks. But some 1995 retirees will be the system’s first losers—meaning the benefits they stand to collect will, on average, fall short of what they paid in Social Security taxes.
Neither story mentions that giving people exactly what they paid in Social Security taxes has never been the goal of Social Security. It is insurance, not a savings account. People retiring now may or may not get more benefits in dollars and cents that equal or exceed the FICA contributions they made. That will depend on a bunch of factors, such as their earnings, their age when they die, and whether they have a spouse or dependent children. In response to the 1995 Time article, no less an expert than the late Robert Myers—who helped create the system, served as its chief actuary for 23 years, and was deputy Social Security commissioner under President Reagan—wrote:
Social Security is not and never was intended to be—a system involving complete individual equity, under which each participant would get exactly his or her money’s worth in benefit protection, no more and no less. Rather it is intended to contain elements of both social adequacy and individual equity.
What Myers meant was that low-income workers would get benefits representing a larger portion of their pre-retirement earnings than those with higher salaries. But the higher-income workers get a larger benefit in absolute dollars. This crucial point is likely to surface in any negotiations over a grand bargain, which the AP didn’t quite get, saying only, “Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes.”
David Certner, the legislative policy director for the AARP, pushed back in the AP story somewhat on the money’s worth argument saying that “returns alone don’t fully explain the value of Social Security. You are buying this lifetime inflation-protected benefit that you can never run out of and that will always be there for you.” While he mentioned disability and survivors’ benefits, important features not normally found in private sector retirement plans, they seemed lost, sandwiched between opening graphs advancing the money’s worth argument and the gloom and doom kicker. “I used to think that it was worth paying for your Social Security, but now I don’t think so,” said 52-year-old Anthony Riley of Columbus, OH.
At 22, Mackenzie Millan of Los Angeles “has even greater doubts about whether Social Security will be a good deal for her. ‘The money that I put aside now, it’s not like that money is going to be waiting for me,’ she said. ‘That money is going toward someone else.’” Apparently Millan didn’t understand that her taxes paid today guarantee her benefits in the future.
The AP story presents a cautionary tale for journos. If the press wants to help the public understand a popular program that’s often misinterpreted, thinking twice before passing along the old money’s worth argument is a good place to begin.
Trudy writes: "giving people exactly what they paid in Social Security taxes has never been the goal of Social Security. It is insurance, not a savings account."
padikiller responds: If it is, it is the most inefficient, underfunded, and patently unjust insurance scheme ever devised.
The people who receive the most benefit relative to the premiums they pay, are the ones who pay the least in premiums.
This is the precise logical equivalent of charging 50 year old drivers with unblemished records twice as much for auto insurance as 18 year old drivers with 2 DUI's.
It's a ridiculously stupid "insurance" scheme.
There are other examples of idiocy. A three year old kid with ADHD gets SS disability payments.... Why, exactly?
Disability "insurance" is designed to replace income in lost wages. How does a three year old kid lose wages?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 9 Aug 2012 at 03:31 PM
A 3 year old does not get SS Disability Payments.
A 3 year old may get SSI payments. SSI is a Federal Welfare Program, that is completely seperate from the Social Security trust funds.
Get your facts straight padikiller
#2 Posted by John, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 09:40 AM
@John
I stand partly, but unimportantly, corrected - A three year old's disability payments are indeed paid from Social Security's titular "welfare" program, not it's "insurance program", until the age of 18. This is really a distinction without a practical difference since (thanks to Obama tax cuts) Social Security is already tapping the general treasury fund to pay "insurance" benefits as well as "welfare" benefits.
Furthermore... When that three year old turns 18, he or she can quality for social security lifetime disability "insurance" benefits without ever having worked a day in his or her life. So my premise remains...
Tell me how THAT is fair "insurance"?
If Social Security is "insurance" it is unjust - as the people who pay the highest premiums receive the least benefits. As I wrote earlier, this is tantamount to charging safe drivers higher premiums than drunk drivers for auto insurance - a patently stupid and unfair proposition.
On the other hand, if Social Security is a "welfare" program, it is also unjust - as low income workers are taxed to pay benefits to high income earners - a working mother who scrubs toilets sees more than 12% of her income taxed to pay retirement benefits for millionaires who may not have worked a day in their lives.
Tell me in what Liberal alternative universe this scheme makes sense.
Either way you look at it, Social Security is an unjust social program.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 11:54 AM
if the government hadn't given itself permission to "borrow" from social security (Reagan an Bush were especially bad about this) there would be no question about the viability of social security. I put borrow in quotes because usually borrowing is something that's done with a plan to PAY BACK! This was really just looting. I say force the government to PAY IT BACK!
Yes there are many in this country like padikiller who would just have disabled people die. I personally don't see where it's "unfair" to support disabled people who are unable to work.
#4 Posted by Rose, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 12:19 PM
Padikiller,
Your description of Social Security Disability Insurance benefits is inaccurate. Children at the age of 3 can receive benefits if their parents are disabled and have paid into the system enough to receive benefits in the event that they become severely disabled. This 3-year-old can only receive benefits for the rest of his/her life if he/she becomes severely disabled or is born severely disabled and are also the children of disabled workers. This gives them the status of an adult disabled child. Another way a 3-year-old can receive benefits is if a parent dies. They then receive survivors benefits until age 18.
#5 Posted by Daniel Marans, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 01:11 PM
Rose blithered: Yes there are many in this country like padikiller who would just have disabled people die.
padikiller reiterates: On the other hand, if Social Security is a "welfare" program, it is also unjust - as low income workers are taxed to pay benefits to high income earners - a working mother who scrubs toilets sees more than 12% of her income taxed to pay retirement benefits for millionaires who may not have worked a day in their lives.
Rose... Read this again, please, and then quit your silly, nonsensical ad hominem.
Typical liberal stupidity....
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 01:12 PM
Padkiller you are a complete moron. How much $ are you getting paid to spam this board?
Fact: People with wealth-based income — interest, dividends, capital gains, rent — are excused from paying Social Security (traditionally 12.4 percent) and Medicare taxes (2.9 percent) on that income. Equally odd, they do not pay Social Security tax on wages above $110,100.
A low income worker pays that 12% in payroll taxes so that 1 day he/she will be guaranteed an income when he or she is no longer able 2 earn 1. Before social security was initiated in this country, 50% of our elderly population lived in poverty. Is that something you would like to go back 2?
Now if we lifted the cap on your millionaire/billionaire friends income, not only could we lower the age requirement, but we could DOUBLE the payout.
Social Security has not contributed 1 penny to our nations deficit. It has never missed a payment. It is funded by the payroll tax, and as long as we have that it will never go broke, it will just pay less in benefits because it is not allowed to run a deficit.
Now if you want to complain about welfare, why dont you turn your attention to corporate welfare. The middle class has paid enough
#7 Posted by Mike Jones, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 04:07 PM
@ Mike Jones
Your post puts us in a wonderful position to point out the contradiction of Social Security fanatics like Lieberman and yourself. You see, when its convenient to do so, SS is described as an “anti poverty” program and because of this, its not “fair” that the maximum payroll cap is $110,000. In the very next breath Social Security fanatics then say “we cant means test it, because its not a welfare program … you pay into it and you take from it when you retire”.
Now if we lifted the cap on your millionaire/billionaire friends income, not only could we lower the age requirement, but we could DOUBLE the payout.
Either you don’t know, or wont acknowledge, is that payout is proportional to income. If its not, then it’s a “welfare program”. If we lift the payroll tax cap, a solution to solve the programs long term (and increasingly short term) solvency concerns, then a high income earner of $1 million in taxable income would take home ten times as much in benefits when he retires then under the current system. But allowing them to even more benefit doesn’t change the long term financial outlook for the program.
As evident by the Myers quote, Lieberman is now shifintg gears and trying to have her cake and eat it too by arguing the program is “ intended to contain elements of both social adequacy and individual equity”.
Really though, is that true? Is it in the legislation? How about Social Security’s charter? Is it in there? It makes a wonderful talking point, to be sure, but it doesn’t reflect the reality of the way the program has operated or currently operates.
#8 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 04:56 PM
What is it with the "paid troll" thing?
A lot of liberals seem to make this silly accusation.
1. What difference does it make whether a comment comes from a "paid" or an "unpaid" source?
2. Why is that you guys only toss out this label when the facts work against you?
As for the substance of this latest screed.
If Social Security is "insurance" then OF COURSE it makes senses to cap premium contributions if benefits are capped! This is how insurance works!
You don't pay more for life insurance just because you make more money!
And of course... The math works against your argument.
DO the DAMNED MATH!
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html
Follow along here, libs. Learn a little from my magnanimous elucidation.
Triplets are born in 1950 and start working right away (call them child actors).
Triplet A contributed the maximum contribution for 60 years and will receive $2533 per month in SS retirement benefits.
Twin B contributed the maximum contribution for less than HALF that time (from 1951 until 1976
Triplet B contributed HALF the maximum benefit for HALF the time (25 years) retiring in 1976 and earning nothing after that. Nonetheless, though Triplet B paid less than a third of what Triplet B paid in Social Security "premiums", Triple B will receive $1599 per month in retirement benefits - Nearly TWO THIRDS of the benefit that his harder working simply receives. Oh... AND the maximum contribution rate that Triplet B saw was 10.0 % while Triplet A saw 12.4% of his income taxed from 1984 onward.
Finally, Triplet C worked only 10 years, from 1950 to 1960 then quit and mooched off of his siblings. He contributed only ONE SIXTH the time that Triplet A contributed and only FORTY PERCENT of the time that Triple B did. Furthermore the maximum contribution rate that Triple C saw was 4.5%. Triplet C, however, will bring home $834 in retirement benefits!
RECAP! The triplet who work ONE SIXTH of the time that his diligent sibling Triplet A worked and who contributed more than a DOZEN times a much in "insurance premiums" will still receive a third of the benefit Triplet A receives!
Now, show me an actual insurance policy that rewards irresponsibility this way. It's a stupid insurance arrangement. As everybody knows, higher premiums bring even higher benefits.
$100 per month in a life insurance premium buys more than twice the benefit than $50 buys. It's just common sense.
Everywhere but in Social Security, that is.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 05:12 PM
We've done the social security thing to death with padi. He just doesn't want to get that:
A) America is a country that hates welfare. Welfare programs are always under attack and being dismantled by right wing republicans.
B) Right wing republicans used excess FICA funds to float government revenues while they passed budget busting tax breaks. (Greenspan and Reagan did this in 83). By the accounting, those excess funds are in the 2 trillion dollar range.
C) Social Security is protected by the fact that everybody puts into it and everybody collects from it in relation to their taxed earnings. There is no division in the country over who gets money and who does not. Everybody gets money, everybody's paid money, nearly everybody wants social security because the program owes them.
The problem is that everybody's taxed wages stagnated since 1978 while the top 1% share of income exploded. This means that social security's revenues are in shortfall compared to its benefits over a large time frame. Right now, that's not a problem because there's a 2 trillion dollar cushion for the program.
But there are people who have gotten tax cuts who don't want to give them back, regardless of how it starves their grannies.
D) Social Security is a guaranteed benefit, unlike every other benefit we see which wallstreet has siphoned off.
E) Social security works, unlike every 401k out there, in that it has lifted the seniors out of poverty. As discussed before MANY TIMES.
34% of people on social security use it for 90% and above of their income. 60% use it for half.
And it doesn't care if there's been a recession or that such and such bank has collapsed or that a bunch of interest rate swaps backfired on investors because the crooks were moving the libor around.
If you do a list of pros and cons about the program, the pros overwhelm the cons completely.
But the guys who are shouting loudest about the cons are cons themselves. Repetitive cons. Ones that post day in and out the same things on the same matters as if they were running a paper route.
And so you can't blame people for wondering pammykiller, if you are paid to do this paper route.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 07:26 PM
Thimbles...
You're dodging...
I'm not arguing about the culture of dependency created by Social Security.
I'll concede that. Indeed, I'll STIPULATE that. HELL, I'll SCREAM ABOUT IT!
I'm just providing incontrovertible proof that it isn't an "insurance" scheme.
It is a welfare scheme... And an unjust one at that.
A worker with kids earning minimum wages pays more than 7% of her gross pay in taxes in order to have the Gubmint pay retirement benefits to millionaires, some of whom never worked a minute in their lives. And her employer kicks in more for her.
In WHAT alternative Liberal universe is this outcome just?
HUH?
You can huff, Thimbo, and you can puff...
But that's just the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y Dude...
Deal with it. Or don't. Whatever.
It isn't going anywhere, either way.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 08:27 PM
@ Mike H Call SS whatever you like. Welfare program or insurance program, it doesnt matter. Im ok with either. The fact remains its a safety net, and its the best program this country has EVER passed. Not everyone is going to be rich, or save enough $$$ to ever retire. Most people live paycheck to paycheck, and the least this country can do is take care of its workers when they are no longer able to work. Its time to strengthen SS, not weaken it
Padikiller... I get it that you hate social security. Im just not exactly sure why. Would this country be better off without it? Would you sleep better at night knowing Grandma and grandpa are sleeping on a street corner? Or how about the family that has done everything right their entire lives and due to unexpected medical bills, sudden death, job shipped over seas, or wall street just decided to gamble their entire 401k away, they now have nothing left, and its too late to build another nest egg. What should happen to those people? I for 1 like the idea that we live in a WE society, not a ME society, and I will gladly pay my share in payroll taxes knowing that something is guaranteed to me & others later, regardless of what happens.
#12 Posted by Mike Jones, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 04:40 PM
@Mike Jones
Social Security has created a culture of dependency. Americans expect the Gubmint to provide for them. This is dangerous and stupid expectation.
Government is inherently inefficient and inherently corrupt (in a political, if not always a criminal, sense).
You, like other liberals, dodge my point in your otherwise pointed and emotional defense of Social Security.. Where is the "justice" in taxing a working mother on her minimum wage salary to pay benefits to a millionaire retiree who never worked a day in her life? HUH?
Hop off your high horse and answer that before you start your preaching.
As a practical matter... Social Security isn't working. It is going broke... Quickly.
When SS started, employees paid only 1% of their incomes into the system for retirement benefits and employers paid nothing. Now, employees see 12.4% of their salary go to SS retirement payroll taxes.
In 1949, the most any person could pay in SS retirement payroll tax was $300 ($2809 in 2012 dollars). In 2012 that amount is $13,640.
In 1949, a full time worker earning 77 cents an hour (equivalent to the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour in 2012 dollars) saw $16.02 contributed to SS retirement benefits (or $150.01 in 2012 dollars).
A full time minimum wage earner now will see $1857.02 contributed to SS retirement through payroll taxes THAT'S MORE THAT 12 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE PAYROLL TAX IN 1949!
Now read that again...
A 1949 minimum wage worker paid just EIGHT PERCENT into SS retirement as do current minimum wage workers, and yet the system is STILL going broke!
Why? Because the Gubmint TAKES our payroll taxes, and issues the Social Security trust fund IOU's at crappy interest rates (currently 1.25 percent - less than the inflation rate).
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 05:58 PM
@ Padikiller making sure our citizens are not homeless and hungry after they are done working in their lifetime is NOT a "dangerous and stupid expectation" The majority of this country is NOT sitting around waiting to collect a check.
People work hard, and they deserve to have a security blanket if things dont go they way they planned.
SS isnt a Handout. You have to put something in the pot to get something out. And the rules are the same wether you are wealthy or poor. So the point about a mother supporting rich people is just plain stupid and pointless.
Also, workers only pay 6.2% in payroll taxes, the other 6.2% percent comes from the employer, stop combining them to prove a point.
Social security is also NOT going broke. It is a PAY-AS-YOU-GO system (current workers support current retirees), The right LOVES to spew this garbage as fact when it couldnt be farther from the truth. SS is what we make of it, IT CAN NOT RUN A DEFICIT, it will just pay less of promised benefits if the trust fund of 2.6 trillion runs dry. There is plenty of time to fix it
Please stop spewing Lies!!!
#14 Posted by mike Jones, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 09:06 PM
@mike jones:
What "lies"?
Do the math yourself. Arithmetic doesn't lie.
The money that employers pay is money just like the money employees pay. US greenbacks, both.
You are dodging again.
Tell us WHY it is "fair" in your estimation to have a working mother earning minimum wage be taxed to pay retirement benefits to millionaires, some of whom have never worked a day in their lives...
HUH, Mike?
How is that a just system in your world?
Stop preaching at me if you can't answer this simple question.
People don't "deserve" a security blanket from the Gubmint. The proper role of the government is not to dole out money to citizens. The sooner we start requiring self-reliance from our citizenry, the sooner this country will be on the road to recovery.
Now... Listen up. I do believe that the government should take care of those who are truly unable to take care of themselves. But as wards of the state in government institutions. No tobacco. No drugs. No alcohol. No junk food. Regular exercise. Etc.
Everybody else needs to either find work or find a private means of mooching.
Finally, your claim that "you have to put something in the pot" is just false. Widows and widowers who never worked can collect SS retirement benefits based on contributions paid by spouses before the marriage . Children on SSI disability can convert to lifetime SS disability without ever working.
And SS is not a "pay as you go" system. It is a classic ponzi scheme (at least according to Paul Krugman, anyway). New contributions go to pay benefits to prior contributors in a deficit spending mechanism. And, speaking of deficits, what in the Hell do you mean "it cannot run a deficit"?
Who is telling LIES here, Mike? Read the damned trustee's report before you blither this kind of silliness:
"The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 09:53 PM
"Social Security has created a culture of dependency. Americans expect the Gubmint to provide for them. This is dangerous and stupid expectation.
Government is inherently inefficient and inherently corrupt (in a political, if not always a criminal, sense)."
At this point we can stop Mike. Mr. Bircher McNewsletter is kinda lost the thread. Too far gone for Eisenhower:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/ike.asp
"The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything — even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
Too far gone for discussion.
"WHY it is "fair" in your estimation to have a working mother earning minimum wage be taxed to pay retirement benefits to millionaires, some of whom have never worked a day in their lives"
Been answered, several times now.
"And SS is not a "pay as you go" system. It is a classic ponzi scheme (at least according to Paul Krugman, anyway)."
Lie. Been debunked, several times.
"Who is telling LIES here, Mike?"
Ida know. Read YOUR link. 'Do the math yourself. Arithmetic doesn't lie.'
"Assets (end of 2010) 2,429.0 179.9 271.9 72.1
Assets (end of 2011) 2,524.1 153.9 244.2 80.7
Net increase in assets 95.0 -26.1 -27.7 8.6"
When the trust fund is exhausted, the benefits will have to be adjusted, but in the meantime the people's money was taxed for a specific purpose which the people expect to be paid. The people's money must be returned to those whom it was borrowed from based on the social agreement on which it was given. You owe 2 trillion dollars.
And we are not going to discuss changes to that agreement unless you want to immediately pay that borrowed money back.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 11 Aug 2012 at 11:47 PM
Meanwhile, social security does have a problem. Its revenues come from wages and the relationship between productivity and wages has stagnated over the last three decades. Therefore today's wages will not fund tomorrow's benefits especially if things like health care inflation keep rising at 4 to 6%.
I detailed the problem and came up with a simple solution here. Worth a gander, if you're into that sort of thing.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:01 AM
BLAST! Link wrecker!
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/how_the_media_has_shaped_the_s.php#comment-60267
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:02 AM
The people pissed away their own money, Thimbles.
The Gubmint IS the "people".
And there was no "agreement" in place. Social Security is not a voluntary program.
As for the Ponzi scheme nature of Social Security, look no futher than your demigod Paul "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman:
"Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today's young may well get less than they put in)."
Let's do this ONE MORE TIME...
Tell us how, in the alternative liberal Universe, it is "fair" that a working mother who earns minimum wage should be taxed in order to pay retirement benefits for millionaires, some of whom never paid a dime into the system or worked a day in their lives...
HUH?
How is this a "just" and equitable program?
WHY can't you daft leftists answer this rather simple question?
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:07 AM
Delete my "link wrecker" comment. It appears the getting up for work at 4am today is starting to affect me a little.
simple solution comment - take 12.
And now, time for a little nap.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:12 AM
Last one for the night:
"As for the Ponzi scheme nature of Social Security, look no futher than your demigod Paul "Conscience of a Liberal" Krugman"
Debunked Lie:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/wapos_misleading_social_security_piece.php#comment-53551
Not a ponzi scheme:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/forget_that_ponzi_scheme_stuff.php
"WHY can't you daft leftists answer this rather simple question?"
8 threads and several iterations ago, I did. Unfortunately, you were too daft to process it then, or the time before, or the time before that, so yea - tell me why I should bother this round.
Then you can answer why do you object to providing the single mother of three income and nutritional supplements, access to daycare and quality public schooling for her kids, access to affordable healthcare and birth control, access to labor representation and the backed ability to fight for better wages and work conditions, access to a pension in her old age...
and then pretend you're interested in how her FICA gets spent on some mythical old widow?
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:34 AM
Thimbles dodges: 8 threads and several iterations ago, I did. Unfortunately, you were too daft to process it then, or the time before, or the time before that, so yea - tell me why I should bother this round.
padikiller responds: This is one of Thimbles' sillier dodges - The Ole' "I Already Said So" Dodge...
He does it all the time.
Rather than deal with an issue that he can't handle without looking silly or absurd, he either pulls this dodge or posts a link to some leftist site.
Then, having falsely claimed to have addressed a matter, he tries his next favorite dodge - the Ole' "Change The Subject" Dodge....
Here, he falsely claims to have provided a defense of taxing a working mother who earn minimum wage to pay benefits to millionaires, and then he runs off to change the subject by demanding I answer his questions.
Well, I'll play. I don't have a problem answering questions or defending my position, unlike screwy leftists. So here goes:
why do you object to providing the single mother of three income and nutritional supplements
I don't object. If this woman can't take care of herself or her children and if she can't find support from private sources, the state should take care of her - in an institution where we ensure that she and her kids are well cared for. No drugs. No tobacco. No alcohol. No junk food. Exercise. Work. Education. Etc.
What is STOOPID is to dole out money to a woman who keeps procreating when she won't support her kids and to let her and her brood run feral in the slums or trailer parks.
access to daycare and quality public schooling for her kids,
"Access" is the new liberal buzzword. Just the latest euphemism for "Snatching Other People's Money".
What you really mean is having Somebody Else pay to handle this woman's kids.
See my response above and note further that "quality public schooling" is an oxymoron. Our public schools are horrendous - worse than those in Brazil.
access to afordable healthcare and birth control
There's that "access" BS again... What you REALLY mean, is forcing Somebody Else to dole out labor and property to take care of this woman's kids because she either can't or won't do so.
If she CAN'T do so, I have already stated how I believe the state has a duty to care for her and her kids.
If she WON'T do so, then she should be locked up for child neglect and her kids removed to foster care.
access to labor representation
Who doesn't have access to labor representation?
I happen to have been a member of two unions. I believe that nobody should be prevented from joining any union they wish. I ALSO believe that nobody should be forced or coerced into joining or remaining in any union.
and the backed ability to fight for better wages and work conditions, access to a pension in her old age
There's that "access" thing again!... What you REALLY mean is Somebody Else doling out money to this woman. She has access to retirement, just as everyone does. She can roll into a bank and start an IRA just like everyone can. She can scrimp, save, invest and bust ass just like anyone can.
If she CAN'T do this, then she should be cared for in a government institution.
If she WON'T do this, then that's her problem.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 07:22 AM
"What you REALLY mean is Somebody Else doling out money to this woman. She has access to retirement, just as everyone does. She can roll into a bank and start an IRA just like everyone can. She can scrimp, save, invest and bust ass just like anyone can."
Except she can't, she has three kids. Perhaps her husband was killed in a car accident, dies of cancer, whatever.
She has three kids being raised on minimum wage, and the only thing you are concerned about is how her guaranteed program - that she's funded all her working life - may cost you as people like her take their money back from the trust fund.
Her retirement is her problem, just like it was in the 1930's when elderly poverty was between 50 and 80%.
But at least she won't be "part of a culture of dependancy" - she won't be dependent on you - because she'll be dead.
And that's not your problem. That's the libertarian paradise.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:17 PM
PS.
"padikiller responds: This is one of Thimbles' sillier dodges - The Ole' "I Already Said So" Dodge..."
People can check this stuff for themselves you know.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_human_faces_behind_the_soc.php#comment-52895
Answered. Done. You don't like the answer, but that's not the same as avoiding or dodging the question.
You can repeat the question all you like, the answer is going to be the same. Face it, it's not that hard a question.
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:26 PM
Thimbles blithers stupidity: She has three kids being raised on minimum wage, and the only thing you are concerned about is how her guaranteed program - that she's funded all her working life - may cost you as people like her take their money back from the trust fund.
padikiller asks: Can you read? I am sticking up for the working poor here, you evasive liar!
What I am ASKING you liberals is WHY it is FAIR to tax a working mother of three who earns minimum wage to pay for the reirement benefits paid to millionaires, some of whom never worked a day in their lives.
THAT is what I'm asking. And THIS is what you are NOT answering.
You are simply LYING when you claim that this question has been reasonably answered. You have to be LYING because in point of fact THERE IS NO REASONABLE ANSWER.
This is why instead of posting an answer, you keep dodging with links to irrelevant content.
It is simply unjust and unfair to tax a working poor person to pay benefits to wealthy non-workers. Any body with a couple of functioning neurons can instantly recognize this fact.
The Social Security scheme is unjust, inefficient, and underfunded.
It needs to be replaced with a system that is fair and funded. PERIOD.
#25 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 12:57 PM
Thimbles drones on incessantly: Except she can't, she has three kids...
padikiller reiterates: If she CAN'T take care of herself and her kids, as I have stated a ZILLION times previously, the state should care for them.
But I DO mean "care"... No drugs. No alcohol. No tobacco. No junk food. Work. Exercise. Curfew. The works.
What taxpayers should NOT be doing is doling out cash to a woman who is incapable of caring for herself or her children so that she can use drugs, get fat, drink beer, smoke cigarettes and procreate on the public dime.
What in the Hell is wrong with this position? What's your beef?
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 01:16 PM
Here is a hypothetical for you factually challenged liberals to chew on...
A guy works his whole life and pays the max into Social Security for 50 years.
The day before he reaches retirement age he marries a 40 year old golddigger who never worked a day in her life. Then he dies an hour later.
She gets a minimum of 71% of his retirement benefit (currently $2533 per month).. That's $1800 a month plus raises and COLA's as she ages until she dies.
If she makes it to 90, she will suck down more than TWO MILLION DOLLARS in Gubmint checks, courtesy (in part) of the working mother who earns minimum wage, without ever working a day in her life! And here is a nice little kicker.. If this woman remarries after she turns 60, she can KEEP GETTING HER DEAD HUSBAND'S MONEY while her new husband supports her! Even worse, she can switch to her new husband's benefit if it gives her more money!
This is just the REALITY guys. This is how it is.
Where is the justice in this scheme?
HUH?
#27 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 01:42 PM
@ padikiller. Hahahaha... I bet your hypothetical question happens ALL the time. And I'm sorry, but that extremely stupid example is NOT a reason to get rid of SS
And for the last time, a working mother pays into SS to have income later in life so she doesn't have to work her entire life. she is NOT supporting millionaires and getting nothing back. Now if you want to means test SS so that rich people can't have the same access to the program as poor people do, then that's all you. I prefer equal access for everyone because the day this country starts to means test SS, jackasses like yourself will start screaming its a welfare program, and will try to dismantle it
Now... Que the same stupid question
#28 Posted by mike jones, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 02:59 PM
mike jones then: It [Social Security retirement] is a PAY-AS-YOU-GO system (current workers support current retirees)
mike jones now: And for the last time, a working mother pays into SS to have income later in life so she doesn't have to work her entire life. she is NOT supporting millionaires and getting nothing back
padikiller notes: You need to get your story straight, Mike.
You blithered off nonsense about the "impossibility" of Social Security running a deficit (nonsense that I refuted from Social Security Trust report showing that the retirement fund is in fact running a deficit NOW).
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but you aren't very persuasive when you change your tune and spew idiocy like you've done.
And the FACT OF THE MATTER is that millionaires received NINE BILLION DOLLARS in SS retirement benefits between 2004 and 2009.
But Hey! Why let the mere truth spoil a liberal Fairy Tale, right?
#29 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 03:10 PM
@ Padikiller you are being either dishonest, OR you are incredibly stupid and helpless.
Which is it?
Social Security IS a PAY-AS-GO-SYSTEM. Current $$ brought in pays for current benefits. Ronald Reagan double dipped on the baby boomers in the 80's to help pay for their retirement. This helped SS build a SURPLUS, which today stands at 2.6 trillion. You are right in that SS currently is paying out more $$$ than it is bringing in, but it has plenty of $$$ in reserve (key point you failed to bring up in your "proof"). NOW (stay with me I know this is difficult for u to comprehend all at once), if we stay the course and do NOTHING to help SS stay solvent, once the trust fund runs dry, SS will pay LESS IN PROMISED BENEFITS because IT CANNOT RUN A DEFICIT. What ever it brings in, is what it will pay. Once again for the slow people, It is a PAY-AS-YOU-GO system. It is not going to cost this country 1 dime, EVER!
SS gives people a means to retire when otherwise they would be homeless OR working till they die. I dont care how much $$$ millionaires have taken out because it is irrelevant to the good that comes from it. If you pay in, you should get your promised benefits back regardless of your income level.
Now... if you want to means test and exclude millionaires from collecting SS, just say that and stop being a douche
#30 Posted by Mike Jones, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 07:58 PM
@ Mike Jones
Your juvenile name-calling is not helpful.
However, you are simply wrong when you say that Social Security "cannot run a deficit". It IS running a deficit.
You are also just wrong when you claim that Social Security will pay "less than promised" benefits if and when the trust fund runs dry. In fact, the Social Security Act makes no such provision and you have no crystal ball to let you know how a future Congress will deal with the problem if it arises years from now. You are just making things up to suit your argument.
You write that "if you pay in," you should receive benefits. I agree. But what I've been addressing is the payment of benefits to people WHO HAVE NOT PAID INTO SOCIAL SECURITY. You are just being pigheaded in your evasion.
My point is that Social Security is both an inefficient and unjust insurance scheme AND also an inefficient and unjust welfare scheme for the reasons I described. The government takes 12.4 percent of your pay for 50 years and then gives you a lousy interest rate (currently a whopping 1.25%) and a crummy benefit payment.
The fact remains (despite your dodging) that under the current scheme, a surviving spouse who never worked a day in his or her life can suck down survivor benefits -- even if he or she is a millionaire and even if he or she married her deceased spouse after the spouse ceased contributing to Social Security. And the fact remains that these benefits are paid by all other contributors, including low-income workers.
The trust fund "surplus" is in fact comprised of nothing but a bunch of non-transferable, non-negotiable, low-interest IOU's from Congress, and their value can be eliminated or reduced at any time with a simple enactment of law or through fiscal policy or crisis.
If you were starving to death and found yourself standing in front of a hamburger stand, which would you rather have? A ten dollar bill? Or a million dollars in Social Security Trust Fund IOU's?
#31 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 12 Aug 2012 at 09:02 PM
Sorry to be so late to the party, but letting an incompetent get the last word here doesn't seem appropriate.
1. The 'trust fund' comprises obligations backed by 'the full faith and credit' of the U.S. government - just like its other obligations to debtors like China and other U.S. bond holders. Yes, we COULD choose to default on any of these but the repercussions would be disastrous for our economy and our credit rating, so in practice it's just not in the cards.
2. SS is completely off-budget, by law, since 1990. It cannot contribute to the national debt since it's wholly funded by its past and present FICA contributions (plus accrued interest). It also cannot run a deficit because there's no mechanism to fund payments beyond what its income and trust fund can support (which is why its projections consistently indicate how benefits will be cut a few decades from now if FICA contribution caps remain at current levels rather than get returned to cover 90% of national income as assumed by the Greenspan Commission in its revamp of the system in the mid-'80s). The current temporary abatement in FICA taxes (and repayment from the general fund) is merely an accounting gimmick to allow tax relief to go to those who most need it - effectively constituting more borrowing and subsequent repayment (of the uncollected taxes) from the trust fund rather than funding from the general fund per se.
3. It is indeed an insurance plan: it pays out where needed, not penny-for-penny what was paid in. It covers not only contributors but to some degree their dependents (which is what the contributors paid for). It is somewhat progressively biased toward those who most need it (i.e., lower-income people get back on average RELATIVELY more than higher-income people, though larger contributors still on average get back more actual dollars due to their larger contributions).
4. In particular, while INDIVIDUAL wealthy people may occasionally enjoy benefits that they don't need, ON AVERAGE they are supporting higher payments to those who do need them, not the other way around.
That only covers the incompetent statements immediately above, but 4,000 characters is far too few to cover all those previously offered up (even if I were inclined to spend the time to do so).
#32 Posted by - bill, CJR on Sat 8 Sep 2012 at 05:08 PM