• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How to argue for social security

M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This will probably step on a few toes

A libertarian makes a few points regarding social security that he wishes that supporters would address:
 
Masterhawk said:
This will probably step on a few toes

A libertarian makes a few points regarding social security that he wishes that supporters would address:
Click to expand...

I'm not going to watch a 22 minute vid just because you say "watch this". How about using a few of your own words?
 
its probably the same exact libertarian points that get touted around here every month or so.

It gets boring.
 
Bullseye said:
I'm not going to watch a 22 minute vid just because you say "watch this". How about using a few of your own words?
Click to expand...

Wise choice. It won't surprise you that Ponzi scheme! lead off... :roll:

I quit when in one segment the guy whines that SS is a transfer from the poor to the rich, and that those who paid more in their working years get higher SS at retirement, then he whined about Clinton signing the bill in 1993 that.....taxed social security, which hits the wealthiest recipients the hardest. So Clinton addressed one of his earlier complaints, and it was still bad, of course - DEMOCRATS!!!!

There are well known problems with SS and he appeared to address some of them accurately enough, but I didn't hear anything I haven't heard 100 times by now.
 
The arguments presented are silly. Most government spending is funded by taxation and this year's taxes fund this year's spending - Social Security (SS) works (mostly) that way too. He then argues for means testing SS benefits, but bemoans (the partial and conditional) income taxation of SS for those with higher incomes which is simply means testing. The difference between a Ponzi scheme and a pay as you go system (current taxes cover current spending) is non-existent but he tries to make it seem different.

The real scheme (scam?) is congress spending more than they dare ask for in taxation year after year, thus forever increasing the cost of paying interest on the national debt (ultimately reaching the point where that interest is 100% of tax revenue).
 
There is no way some YouTube video is going to spew out something new, and odds are it will skip over a few points just to make whatever point the video is aiming for.
 
the best argument for Social Security and Medicare is to vote against Republicans.
 
JasperL said:
Wise choice. It won't surprise you that Ponzi scheme! lead off... :roll:

I quit when in one segment the guy whines that SS is a transfer from the poor to the rich, and that those who paid more in their working years get higher SS at retirement, then he whined about Clinton signing the bill in 1993 that.....taxed social security, which hits the wealthiest recipients the hardest. So Clinton addressed one of his earlier complaints, and it was still bad, of course - DEMOCRATS!!!!

There are well known problems with SS and he appeared to address some of them accurately enough, but I didn't hear anything I haven't heard 100 times by now.
Click to expand...
I figured that was how it who be. Thanks.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The arguments presented are silly. Most government spending is funded by taxation and this year's taxes fund this year's spending - Social Security (SS) works (mostly) that way too. He then argues for means testing SS benefits, but bemoans (the partial and conditional) income taxation of SS for those with higher incomes which is simply means testing. The difference between a Ponzi scheme and a pay as you go system (current taxes cover current spending) is non-existent but he tries to make it seem different.

The real scheme (scam?) is congress spending more than they dare ask for in taxation year after year, thus forever increasing the cost of paying interest on the national debt (ultimately reaching the point where that interest is 100% of tax revenue).
Click to expand...

I agree with all that, but one point that he hit which IMO is very important is that graph. What it showed was the growing share of entitlements, and how in a few years that entitlements alone will exceed current taxes. The dishonesty there was it was a segment on SS, but the graph shows SS really isn't a problem. It's a big share of spending but mostly stable out many years. The big problem is Medicare, which just looking at it broadly appears to more than double over the time period in the graph....

It's a bait and switch as I see it. If we want to attack entitlements, the only place to spend significant worry IMO is on Medicare, not SS. We can "fix" SS in a month if we want. Medicare is the tough one.
 
JasperL said:
I agree with all that, but one point that he hit which IMO is very important is that graph. What it showed was the growing share of entitlements, and how in a few years that entitlements alone will exceed current taxes. The dishonesty there was it was a segment on SS, but the graph shows SS really isn't a problem. It's a big share of spending but mostly stable out many years. The big problem is Medicare, which just looking at it broadly appears to more than double over the time period in the graph....

It's a bait and switch as I see it. If we want to attack entitlements, the only place to spend significant worry IMO is on Medicare, not SS. We can
"fix" SS in a month if we want. Medicare is the tough one.
Click to expand...

Yep, medical care costs are rising much faster than either wages or general inflation. Of course, Medicare parts B and D also have premiums (taxes?) which (effectively) reduce SS income. Medicare (for some) is harder to fix, but Medicare for All faces the same problems on a much larger scale.
 
Social Security is a stupid ‘investment’ the government uses to fund its own irresponsible spending.

I don’t agree with forcing people to buy something. But at least if you are, don’t make it the worst imaginable product in the world which already has far superior competition.

At least let me choose where my forced contributions go. Nope. Can’t do that. For a billion brain dead excuses.
 
Aberration said:
Social Security is a stupid ‘investment’ the government uses to fund its own irresponsible spending.

I don’t agree with forcing people to buy something. But at least if you are, don’t make it the worst imaginable product in the world which already has far superior competition.

At least let me choose where my forced contributions go. Nope. Can’t do that. For a billion brain dead excuses.
Click to expand...

Taxation simply does not work that way.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Taxation simply does not work that way.
Click to expand...

That’s because government is run by inbred degenerates.

Every 401K provider has a very easy process to allow me to choose where my contributions go.

If someone prefers the security of Treasuries then let them choose that.

I have a 22% RoR on my 401K and 24% on my IRA. I’d love to see that return on the 16.5% sent to SS.

And so would anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
 
Aberration said:
That’s because government is run by inbred degenerates.

Every 401K provider has a very easy process to allow me to choose where my contributions go.

If someone prefers the security of Treasuries then let them choose that.

I have a 22% RoR on my 401K and 24% on my IRA. I’d love to see that return on the 16.5% sent to SS.

And so would anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
Click to expand...
First of all there are a lot of people who do not make enough money to have a 401K or any other type of retirement
If they did not take out SS from their pay when they got old they would not have any income to live on
Hate to break that to you, but there are people out there that are working at min. wage and some working several jobs just to survive.
and as for SS it is an entitlement program ONLY for the fact that people pay FICA tax for years and are entitled to get that money back it is not an what the Republicans call entitlement program like welfare or some of the other same type programs
from what I read you don't care that these people can not save enough money to live on in their old age by having a 401K or other retirement and would be in really bad shape if they didn't have it
some of them might even starve to death
Thanks
and have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
First of all there are a lot of people who do not make enough money to have a 401K or any other type of retirement
If they did not take out SS from their pay when they got old they would not have any income to live on
Hate to break that to you, but there are people out there that are working at min. wage and some working several jobs just to survive.
and as for SS it is an entitlement program ONLY for the fact that people pay FICA tax for years and are entitled to get that money back it is not an what the Republicans call entitlement program like welfare or some of the other same type programs
from what I read you don't care that these people can not save enough money to live on in their old age by having a 401K or other retirement and would be in really bad shape if they didn't have it
some of them might even starve to death
Thanks
and have a nice day
Click to expand...

First of all 16.5% of your wage, half from your employer, already goes to social security. So anyone working already makes enough.

If you bothered reading what I wrote they would have FAR MORE in retirement.

From what you read? Where did you read this? Quit making **** up.

It’s basic math. If you’re a Democrat you support public education? Did you attend? This level of math was covered.
 
Social Security rate of return 1.23%.
10 year Treasury yield 1.67%.

Social Security surplus is invested into a special class of Treasuries.

It’s not rocket science. Every American should know they are getting screwed badly. Our compelled contributions are being used to cheaply fund irresponsible government spending.

That’s because Treasury yields were going through the roof in the 70’s-80’s and it was impossible to maintain.
 
Aberration said:
First of all 16.5% of your wage, half from your employer, already goes to social security. So anyone working already makes enough.

If you bothered reading what I wrote they would have FAR MORE in retirement.

From what you read? Where did you read this? Quit making **** up.

It’s basic math. If you’re a Democrat you support public education? Did you attend? This level of math was covered.
Click to expand...
good point I see you have not bothered to look up just what the FICA rates are and you must have missed a lot of basic math classes
the FICA tax is NOT 16.5%
it is 6.2% for you and 6.2% for your employer that is 12.4% for SS and 1.45 for medicare for you and 1.45 % for your employer that adds up to 2.9%
if your 16.5% included medicare it should have been 15.3%
now IF you had read what I posted you would have known that there are a lot of people out there working at Min. wage and need every cent they earn to live on and IF the government did not take take FICA out of their wages they would not have anything to retire on.
NOT everybody can or will put money in a 401K
again the only way some people can save for a retirement is paying into SS
If SS wasn't required for these people to pay into a lot of them would have nothing saved up for when they retire and they would have to work till they couldn't any more.
Have a nice day
 
Aberration said:
Social Security rate of return 1.23%.
10 year Treasury yield 1.67%.

Social Security surplus is invested into a special class of Treasuries.

It’s not rocket science. Every American should know they are getting screwed badly. Our compelled contributions are being used to cheaply fund irresponsible government spending.

That’s because Treasury yields were going through the roof in the 70’s-80’s and it was impossible to maintain.
Click to expand...
Another thing I have posted many times that we need a balanced budget amendment with some REAL teeth in it so we could NOT spend more then we take in ( only be able to spend more then we take in in case of a major war or a deep recession / depression ) and we should have a 1% sales tax that could not be deducted on FIT and everybody would pay it , even large Corps
we all got some benefit from running the debt up we all should help pay it off
and when the debt is paid off that sales tax would be suspended and could only be reinstated if we had to pay the debt off again because of a war or recession/depression
and then the SS system would get the money they have in US " bonds " and could invest that money in secure investments that give a larger ROI
have a nice day
 
Tbird19482 said:
Another thing I have posted many times that we need a balanced budget amendment with some REAL teeth in it so we could NOT spend more then we take in
Click to expand...

No matter what there will be some sort of provision to break the budget in the event of an emergency. Consider that Democrats believe climate change is an "emergency" and you can see how easy any balanced budget amendment would be to get around.

But more importantly, it simply isn't in the state's interest to have a rule mandating a balanced budget, which is why no country on the planet has one.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The arguments presented are silly. Most government spending is funded by taxation and this year's taxes fund this year's spending - Social Security (SS) works (mostly) that way too. He then argues for means testing SS benefits, but bemoans (the partial and conditional) income taxation of SS for those with higher incomes which is simply means testing. The difference between a Ponzi scheme and a pay as you go system (current taxes cover current spending) is non-existent but he tries to make it seem different.

The real scheme (scam?) is congress spending more than they dare ask for in taxation year after year, thus forever increasing the cost of paying interest on the national debt (ultimately reaching the point where that interest is 100% of tax revenue).
Click to expand...

I'm actually for means testing and eliminating the cap on FICA taxes. I see no reason for Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos to get a social security check. I don't give a crap that they paid into the system.
 
Aberration said:
Social Security is a stupid ‘investment’ the government uses to fund its own irresponsible spending.

I don’t agree with forcing people to buy something. But at least if you are, don’t make it the worst imaginable product in the world which already has far superior competition.

At least let me choose where my forced contributions go. Nope. Can’t do that. For a billion brain dead excuses.
Click to expand...

Most people don't save for retirement so forced savings isn't a bad idea. Also, making risky investments with SS money would probably require future bailouts. Let's face it, the lower tier wouldn't have a clue how to invest.
 
Aberration said:
That’s because government is run by inbred degenerates.

Every 401K provider has a very easy process to allow me to choose where my contributions go.

If someone prefers the security of Treasuries then let them choose that.

I have a 22% RoR on my 401K and 24% on my IRA. I’d love to see that return on the 16.5% sent to SS.

And so would anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. There are millions who don't have two brain cells to rub together.
 
Tbird19482 said:
Another thing I have posted many times that we need a balanced budget amendment with some REAL teeth in it so we could NOT spend more then we take in ( only be able to spend more then we take in in case of a major war or a deep recession / depression ) and we should have a 1% sales tax that could not be deducted on FIT and everybody would pay it , even large Corps
we all got some benefit from running the debt up we all should help pay it off
and when the debt is paid off that sales tax would be suspended and could only be reinstated if we had to pay the debt off again because of a war or recession/depression
and then the SS system would get the money they have in US " bonds " and could invest that money in secure investments that give a larger ROI
have a nice day
Click to expand...

As much as I hate the debt and the stupidity of it, I am not for a federal balanced budget amendment. I don't understand how it works. If the floor drops out of economy then we would be forced to slash expenses, also known as austerity, the very opposite of what you need in a depressed economy. And, a balanced budget amendment might trigger higher taxes to cover the out of control spending that neither party seems capable of stopping so taxes would constantly be going up. On top of that, if you right exceptions into the law for such occasions then the congress will forever be passing exceptions to get by the BBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom