I'm new to these forums and haven't read all 14 pages of posts. I have kept up on this debate for many years though. Everyone that starts Social Security collects all they have paid into it plus interest in a few years. It was never designed as a replacement for a pension. Life expectancies were much shorter in the 1930's. The amount of money needed to keep Social Security solvent is not all that large per person, if it is done now. Who pays it isn't all that significant, be it lower, middle or upper income people. Each group should pay their fair share. It is a small price to pay. I haven't checked recently, but I think that wages are only taxed for Social Security up to 97K. Investments aren't taxed. The question really should be, do we need it? I say most definitely yes. Why? because it serves as a safety net. As we have seen in recent years, pension funds can go broke, widow and orphan stocks can go bust and real estate can lose value. That's why Social Security should never be invested in the stock market. It's also why people shouldn't invest it themselves. It was designed to be a stipend not an income. It will keep you from winding up homeless or dependent on relatives. That by the way has also become more difficult as we now have smaller families, we live longer and aren't an agrarian society any more. We have extended to other groups not originally intended. I'm not saying that it is a bad thing, just that it creates further strains on the system.
Illegitimati non carborundum
Absolutely right. It IS a Ponzi scheme--the greatest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world.
What is interesting is that FDR signed it into law in 1935 -- just a few years after Ponzi himself was caught and thrown into prison.
There is ONE huge difference between Ponzi's scheme and Roosevelt's. People could opt out of Ponzi's. People were FORCED to "invest" in Roosevelt's.
FDR -- America's all time greatest TRAITOR.
End the greatest Ponzi scheme that has ever been devised.
Last edited by ronpaulvoter; 05-22-08 at 03:14 PM.
No, I wouldn't for a key reason. While I detest the program and I agree it's a giant ponzi scheme requiring ever increasing numbers of fresh meat and should have been reformed decades ago, there's a reason I wouldn't want to kill it.
My fellow Americans have a horrid savings rate. Absolutely terrible in the developed world and nothing exists to suggest this will change. Many people do not save for the future. Many have their fortunes in their houses. Not exactly easy to extract funds from aside from a home equity line of credit or a reverse mortgage.
With that in mind, I'd rather pay a relatively small portion of my income to maintain that monstrosity then to pay a huge amount of my income later when politicians tax the crap out of us to placate the millions of Americans who failed to prepare for retirement. This reason is purely selfish. I wish to reduce my outflows to the entitlement. Killing it now will almost certainly result in more money leaving my wallet in the future. This is purely cost vs benefit. And the benefit to me is in leaving it alone.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu