• 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!

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You?

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You?


  • Total voters
    19
  • Poll closed .

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets


For those who choose to settle at a discount, the execution would work like this. From the time of the decision on, every payday the 6.2% deduction from your paycheck, instead of disappearing into the maw of the insolvent Social Security program, would directly buy from the Treasury an equivalent amount of actual Treasury bonds, preferably inflation-indexed ones, which would be automatically deposited in your IRA. You now would have assets you truly own, which you could hold or sell to reinvest in your IRA at your option. In exchange, you would give up future scheduled Social Security benefits in the amount of the bond purchase divided by 0.77. This is the same saying that you would be paid in bonds 77% of the reduction in your scheduled future benefits.

So would you do it?
 
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.

Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets

So would you do it?

Yeah. In a heartbeat.

But when I answer that, I also take into account my other financial and tax factors, which are very different from most 26-year-old Americans.

If I were more representative, I'd have to think on it. But I'd probably still do it, like, 10 years from now, if the current trajectory were to continue.
 
Bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.
 
Yes.


Because like pensions, it's gonna be a deal that eventually gets reneged on.
 
This sounds interesting on the financial side, but what about medical?

Will the medical insurance aspect remain intact?

What about disability benefits?

The 'Social Security' package encompasses an umbrella network of benefits - not just a retirement check.
 
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
 
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.

You weren't exactly promised anything. Hell I'd actually be happy to get back what I've paid in.
 
Social Security tax will have to be raised because the money was never invested. This time around invest in gold, silver, bonds, and the stock market. Had we done this in the beginning most financial experts say the 2.5 trillion surplus would be as much as 100 times as high. Through much of the history of Social Security our surpluses would have doubled every 5 to 7 years. Social Security would be the largest owner of gold, silver, stocks, and bonds in the world. There would be no second place. Everyone in this country could retire comfortably.
 
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.

When did the government promise you anything?
 
Considering I'll be applying for my benefit in 4 months, NO.
 
Perhaps social security works differently in the US than it does in Canada but based on what I know of our system, I wouldn't. Generally, when you cash out of such a system or plan before you're fully vested, you are only entitled to your own contributions plus standard interest and not entitled to any contributions made by your employer on your behalf. As such, you'd be leaving a lot of money on the table just to get out.

In addition, how is it determined how much you're "owed"? The amount you'd realize from social security would increase or decrease based on how long you live. If you live to 70 what you're entitled to is significantly less than should you live into your 90s. The longer you expect to live, the more profitable for you a defined benefit payment will be.
 
When did the government promise you anything?
You can receive an Estimation of Benefits from SSA. It shows you your age 62, full retirement, and age 70 benefit.
 
You weren't exactly promised anything. Hell I'd actually be happy to get back what I've paid in.

of course i was. i was promised that i could retire at 65 with full benefits. if there isn't enough money to do that, make it enough, or raise taxes.
 
When did the government promise you anything?

save your absolutist libertarian nonsense arguments for someone who even gives a fraction of a ****.
 
save your absolutist libertarian nonsense arguments for someone who even gives a fraction of a ****.

So no one ever promised you anything. Good to know.
 
of course i was. i was promised that i could retire at 65 with full benefits. if there isn't enough money to do that, make it enough, or raise taxes.

Nah, they can change it as they see fit. No inherent promise there.

  • The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

Social Security Online History Pages

Hell SS used to be tax free, then they went up to 50%, now it's can be up to 85%. Full retirement age used to be 65, now it's 67. With the looming baby boomer crowd going through SS, I can guarantee you there will be more changes.
 
Last edited:
Nah, they can change it as they see fit. No inherent promise there.

  • The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

Social Security Online History Pages

Hell SS used to be tax free, then they went up to 50%, now it's can be up to 85%. Full retirement age used to be 65, now it's 67. With the looming baby boomer crowd going through SS, I can guarantee you there will be more changes.

almost certainly. however, i don't support those changes. i'm out of the daily grind at 65 no matter what it means for my social security benefits.
 
almost certainly. however, i don't support those changes. i'm out of the daily grind at 65 no matter what it means for my social security benefits.

Would you support changes if it means not screwing over younger generations even more?
 
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.

If they raise taxes, they would just be taking much of what you were promised back again. If there is not enough money, put the able bodied welfare recipients to work and cut down on the pork barrel spending products....and stop raiding the SS trust fund.
 
If they raise taxes, they would just be taking much of what you were promised back again. If there is not enough money, put the able bodied welfare recipients to work and cut down on the pork barrel spending products....and stop raiding the SS trust fund.

i absolutely support utilizing the public sector to hire the unemployed.
 
Yes. I'll be 55 next week. Paid in quite a bit.
 
i absolutely support utilizing the public sector to hire the unemployed.

Which public sector? Federal, state or municipal? Think carefully before you answer, because the latter two don't issue their own currency and thus basically have to balance their budgets, therefore budgetary constraints exist, and so at those levels simply forcing the citizens in a given area who don't want to or have the funds to hire the unemployed will result in a battered tax base and economic suffering.
 
Which public sector? Federal, state or municipal? Think carefully before you answer, because the latter two don't issue their own currency and thus basically have to balance their budgets, therefore budgetary constraints exist, and so at those levels simply forcing the citizens in a given area who don't want to or have the funds to hire the unemployed will result in a battered tax base and economic suffering.

Lol wtf?

On what basis are you arguing against the government employing people whose labor would otherwise be completely wasted? Your inability to imagine who would pay for it?
 
On what basis are you arguing against the government employing people whose labor would otherwise be completely wasted?

On the basis that there is nothing remaining that the taxpayers (who must pay those wages and benefits) want or need them to do. Because if there was, they would already be employing them to do it.

On the basis that those they did hire (e.g. to keep their streets and sewer lines clear, water lines connected and supplied, garbage collected, and so forth) have now unionized against them and inflated their wages and benefits to levels that no longer provide sufficient public funding for more public employees.

On the basis that public sector pensions have resulted in monumental liabilities that have been pinned on the new generation of taxpayers, who happen to be poorer and more underemployed and over-indebted than their parents' and grandparents' generations were at the same age.

On all sorts of bases do I argue that the government does not need to be giving people "jobs" for the sake of them being "employed." I would rather expand welfare (for working age people) than create workfare as a pretense of productivity.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom