Socialist and Against
Socialist and For
Democrat and Against
Democrat and For
Republican and Against
Republican and For
Libertarian and Against
Liberarian and For
I am for it, but with a particular modification (explain)
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
As a stand-alone entity, the social security trust fund is quite solvent and currently profitable on a year-over-year basis.
Note balance sheet of Trust fund with $2.3T in equity as of 9/30/08: A Look At Social Security
Of course, all of the assets of this trust fund are in US Treasuries. The fund buys Treasuries with its proceeds and the cash, of course, is loaned to the US government for normal activities, like building infrastructure, running the government operations and defense. As of January 31, 2011, the total national debt was $14.1T, of which $4.6T was intragovernmental debt (owed from one department to another)... substantially all of it to the social security trust fund. This meant the government owed $9.5T to the public.
That all said, this is all accounting as there is no real trust fund. It is just a set of books, just as the money you have at the bank is not really there, only the obligation to you is there on the bank's books. But, the social security administration collected some $4.6T from payroll taxes and loaned it to the government for interest.
The problem with you and many others is inconsistent argumentation. If you want to say the national debt is $14.1T, then you must include the $4.6T owed to social security (an asset to that fund), meaning social security is quite solvent and profitable. On the other hand, if you want to say that money loaned by FICA is never going to be collected, then the national debt is $9.6T and to use a higher number is intellectual dishonesty. Pick one.
I take you for a $14.1T debt guy, meaning FICA is quite solvent.
As social security is a pay as you go system, it has no unfunded liabilities. If you want to do accounting as defined benefit pension plan, a valid position, then we have a different situation.
The fundamental problem, however, and the sham that has be perpetrated on the American people is the increased reliance on payroll taxes (largely social security) to make up for the fact that we are letting our corporations get away with tax larency (their tax contributions have been falling, yet profits rising over the past three decades).
It isn't about your decisions, a willingness to work, or how hard you look for a job. It's about how many lucky breaks you get along the way.
Think back to when you got your first job and you'll see what I mean.
There but for the twists of fate go thou...
The obvious problem is that if enough people opt out of Social Security, you won't have the money on hand to pay those who've already paid into it, making for a bunch of very angry senior citizens who will seize their dentures and pitchforks, march on Washington, and leave a wake of rubble and destroyed buildings - okay, I'm getting carried away here, but you get the idea.
While I think health care is a Constitutionally supportable concept (though I opposed the specific bills put out recently) I don't see how retirement fits under 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' or why the government should be covering it. It would be nice to end Social Security. The problem is that to cover those who are receiving benefits from the system while stopping more people from putting money into the system, or privatizing, or opting out, any of that, you need a lot of cash resources on hand - and the government right now is bankrupt, not even able to stop borrowing.
The simple way to do this is just change the retirement age. When Social Security was passed, the average life expectancy was 62, whereas now it's 70. We're paying for 8 more years of retirement than was intended. Just change even half of that and the system becomes sustainable and profitable again. Not to mention it would have a surplus built up if politicians didn't keep borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to pay for everything else...
Maybe we can end the system later, but right now we just can't afford to.
Also, I'm an independent and against, so I can't vote
Of course luck has a lot to do with how successful someone is. It may be impossible to overcome very bad luck. However, the individual has a lot of control. I have many stories of how I changed my bad luck into and opportunity that almost made up for the bad luck. Do that enough in America and you can usually end up acceptably well off. Don’t and you end up poor or very poor.
With your comment you are headed into a hole that is hard to dig back out of.
Social Security was designed from the start as redistribution. It was just called something different to get people on board.
When it was enacted the average life expectancy for a male in the U.S. was 59.9 and for the female 63.9. The retirement age was 65. The idea was to collect monies from some workers which would never receive them and give them to others.
You have to remember people in that era usually worked long after 65. Social security wasn't more than they could make working. The business community was different as well. Companies kept older employees because they valued their experience and insight.
As it was designed it probably would have limped along for quite a while. The politicians kept adding more and more categories of people to receive benefits. Where now even non-citizens or other nationals can collect benefits whether they have paid into the system or not.
Since the politicians will not revise the definitions of possible recipients the only logical thing is to go back to the original model and raise the retirement age beyond the average life expectancy which currently is 78 years. Maybe retirement age should be 85.
Plutarch was incorrect. People (dogs too) are independent actors restrained by situation and moment. There are choices. Why would you even discuss this point if you believed what you are saying?