• 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!

Should the Young be Allowed to Opt Out?

Should the Young be allowed to Escape Paying In when they will never Draw Out?


  • Total voters
    33
CP your a smart guy and I respect your opinion but you keep saying the same things over and over and you refuse to address any points any one else makes and please dont put your intentions to my words...another words please dont put words in my mouth.

so you are in favor of Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare and adopt means-testing, to give wealthy future retirees less and poor future retirees more?

No I am not because paul ryan idea of rich starts at the lower middleclass at 75,000 Paul Ryan is real cute, he wants lower payments to start at 75k...in 10 yrs two people wont be able to live on 75k whos BSin who CP ? ryans plan is a totaly conjob

75k in personal income is the 88.57 percentile. You consider that lower middle class? Are you saying 85% of our nation should be considered poor? Come on lpast.
 
Oh, I see a tax you paid that you didn't get a benefit from.
It's different when you won't get to use it wouldn't you say?
Is that like the taxes I paid from my tiny salary plus hazardous duty pay for the stupid Vietnam War while I was stationed in SE Asia?
 
They should have to pay in, and get off their duffs and fix the system so it is there for them. People could effectively shut down government if they could opt out of everything they don't use or like. Nonsense!!
 
Yes they should pay in, and get off thier duff and fix the system so it will be there for them. Americans could effectively shutdown government if they could opt out of everything they don't use or don't like. Nonsense!! It is the ol con-kids-game of "Why should I have to pay?"
 
That's sounds right you are withheld 7.65 percent of all earnings and there is no minimum limit.

My dad would match whatever i put into the bank. That's what social security does. It's not really a tax. It's more what dad was doing.

not unless your dad immediately took your money, and his, and spent it on booze.
 
Yes they should pay in, and get off thier duff and fix the system so it will be there for them. Americans could effectively shutdown government if they could opt out of everything they don't use or don't like. Nonsense!! It is the ol con-kids-game of "Why should I have to pay?"

Why should we be getting off our duffs to fix a system of promises that we never made to begin with? Why should we be collectively be supporting society at the expense of supporting ourselves and our loved ones as they age?

It's not a legitimate tax. It's a forced retirement plan that is administered with less efficiency and success than we could do for ourselves. We're not saying we won't let the older generations keep their selfish promises to themselves at our expense...that boat sailed during the Roosevelt administration. But we should be given back control of our futures rather than paying into an insolvent entitlement we never asked for to start with.
 
Last edited:
CP your a smart guy and I respect your opinion but you keep saying the same things over and over and you refuse to address any points any one else makes

...says the guy who refuses to even pretend to answer points, and instead prefers to post in a blurb at the bottom?

and please dont put your intentions to my words...another words please dont put words in my mouth.

all i'm doing is demonstrating how your claims don't jibe with your positions.

I support ending corporate welfare! except when republicans do it
I support not cutting taxes on the rich! unless of course such an idea is proposed by a member of the GOP
I support trying to make sure that we are helping the poor during the time of cuts! but not Republican attempts to do so

you complain about fantastical GOP positions, and then I point out to you how you are already in agreement with the Ryan Budget... and the response from you is.... silence...

No I am not because paul ryan idea of rich starts at the lower middleclass at 75,000

you consider 75K a year to be lower middle class?!?

dang.... i wish i was lower middle class. here i was thinking i was lower middle class, and apparently i'm impoverished or something.

Paul Ryan is real cute, he wants lower payments to start at 75k...in 10 yrs two people wont be able to live on 75k

sure they will be. however, you will be happy to know that those benefits are linked to inflation. ;)
 
...says the guy who refuses to even pretend to answer points, and instead prefers to post in a blurb at the bottom?



all i'm doing is demonstrating how your claims don't jibe with your positions.

I support ending corporate welfare! except when republicans do it
I support not cutting taxes on the rich! unless of course such an idea is proposed by a member of the GOP
I support trying to make sure that we are helping the poor during the time of cuts! but not Republican attempts to do so

you complain about fantastical GOP positions, and then I point out to you how you are already in agreement with the Ryan Budget... and the response from you is.... silence...



you consider 75K a year to be lower middle class?!?

dang.... i wish i was lower middle class. here i was thinking i was lower middle class, and apparently i'm impoverished or something.



sure they will be. however, you will be happy to know that those benefits are linked to inflation. ;)

As I already explained to him, 75k is the 88% percentile, hardly lower middle class.
 
45% of households don't pay Federal income taxes; those 45% are generally the poor which are also generally the young. however, everyone (virtually) pays the payroll (FICA) tax, economists are near-united in their belief that the employer "match" comes out of compensation. Which means that each employee is taxed at roughly 15% of income for FICA before they ever get to local, state, and federal income taxes. given that local and state rates are under 15% for low-income workers, and they aren't paying federal income tax, i would very much like to see you demonstrate that the payroll tax is beaten by a heavier tax burden from somewhere else.

Everyone that pays into SS pays into federal each and every check. The reason that they say that 45% of households "don't pay federal income taxes" is because come tax time they get most (or all) of the taxes back that they paid in. Just because they get it all back at the end of the tax season does not mean that taxes are not taken out of checks. And its always the same. Federal taxes are the most, then state then medicare then SS.
 
Ya know, something is going to be there when you're too old to work. We're not going to let you wallow in poverty after you worked so hard all your life. We don't do that.

Don't get too upset that we have politicians who aren't very helpful, I assure you the hospitals are ready for you. That's solid good stuff. If nobody can afford a house then the prices will go down. If you have nothig to eat they will bring you food. You could babysit or do work on the computer for extra cash. Don't report it to the IRS for heavens sake! Keep active and do some stretching and muscle building. If tou have arthritis and it hurts all the more reason to excersize. You'll still have all your favorite music to keep you grounded.

Being in a nursing home for convalescence really opened my eyes about the lives of old people. I'm not scared a bit.
 
Everyone that pays into SS pays into federal each and every check. The reason that they say that 45% of households "don't pay federal income taxes" is because come tax time they get most (or all) of the taxes back that they paid in. Just because they get it all back at the end of the tax season does not mean that taxes are not taken out of checks. And its always the same. Federal taxes are the most, then state then medicare then SS.

a response that gives us nothing. i want to see the State and Local taxes that are greater than 15% of a low-incoe workers' income.
 
I can't really count on SS being there for me in 40 years, but opting out isn't that easy. The system doesn't actually return the money you paid in and needs current tax revenues for funding. Social security provides needed social stability among the old and suddenly cutting off the money would have consequences. Ideally SS will get enough reforms like an increased retirement age that it can continue to make ends meet. Failing that, it needs to be phased out gradually to minimize the fallout.

Opting out is currently absolutely impossible if you work for someone else. If you have your own business, you can "sort of" opt out by incorporating your business, paying yourself a ridiculously low salary (on which SS/Medicare is withheld) and paying out the rest of your money in the form of dividends...unless and until the IRS catches you. ;)

I feel no obligation to pay for a promise that I had no part in making to anyone. The way I see social security is that a generation made promises to pad their retirements at the expense of future generations and that it was a wholly selfish act on their parts that has created long-term difficulties for the nation today. Because so many have come to depend on SS, I say we let anyone over a certain age keep to their plan to go on the dole at 65 but everyone younger doesn't need to opt out -- it simply will not continue for them. Let people be responsible for their own retirements.

But people will end up not being responsible for themselves. We will not let them starve in the streets.

Why should we be getting off our duffs to fix a system of promises that we never made to begin with? Why should we be collectively be supporting society at the expense of supporting ourselves and our loved ones as they age?
It's not a legitimate tax. It's a forced retirement plan that is administered with less efficiency and success than we could do for ourselves. We're not saying we won't let the older generations keep their selfish promises to themselves at our expense...that boat sailed during the Roosevelt administration. But we should be given back control of our futures rather than paying into an insolvent entitlement we never asked for to start with.

It's a legitimate tax. Been proven time and again. These weren't selfish promises...SS is solvent...except that Congress has "funged" the money into other areas...and the piper now needs to be paid. If people are left to their own devices, the greater majority of them will end up broke.

Ya know, something is going to be there when you're too old to work. We're not going to let you wallow in poverty after you worked so hard all your life. We don't do that. Don't get too upset that we have politicians who aren't very helpful, I assure you the hospitals are ready for you. That's solid good stuff. If nobody can afford a house then the prices will go down. If you have nothig to eat they will bring you food. You could babysit or do work on the computer for extra cash. Don't report it to the IRS for heavens sake! Keep active and do some stretching and muscle building. If tou have arthritis and it hurts all the more reason to excersize. You'll still have all your favorite music to keep you grounded. Being in a nursing home for convalescence really opened my eyes about the lives of old people. I'm not scared a bit.

I'm with you.
 
It's a legitimate tax. Been proven time and again. These weren't selfish promises...SS is solvent...except that Congress has "funged" the money into other areas...and the piper now needs to be paid. If people are left to their own devices, the greater majority of them will end up broke.

Who exactly has proven that it's a legitimate tax "time and again"? And yes, the promises were selfish. It was a selfish promise made to one generation at the expense of the next and it rolls from one to the next. It was ill conceived, poorly planned, and executed with no regard for the future of the nation.

And I don't really care what happens to the greater majority of people left to their own devices. That's their problem. Not mine, not society's.
 
Who exactly has proven that it's a legitimate tax "time and again"? And yes, the promises were selfish. It was a selfish promise made to one generation at the expense of the next and it rolls from one to the next. It was ill conceived, poorly planned, and executed with no regard for the future of the nation.

And I don't really care what happens to the greater majority of people left to their own devices. That's their problem. Not mine, not society's.

It was a completely unselfish promise in the beginning. We took care of our own elderly citizens, many of whom had lost the farm in the great depression. Should the great depression II come to a city near you, you will not have any money in your old age. No matter how well you conceive, plan, and execute your personal retirement plan, you will be broke and destitute.

Do you still want to rough it on your own?
 
Over in the poll on whether or not folks are willing to give up their social security, the young seem to be breaking pretty heavily in favor of doing so; with the oft-repeated point that they have no anticipation of ever collecting.

SO

ASSUMING that they are correct (and mathematically, they are), should the young who can reasonably expect to never be able to draw from the system be allowed to opt out and not throw their FICA money away?

I remind all here that the young are also generally the poor; and the FICA tax is often the heaviest burden placed on them by government.


as an editing note - those who are under 40 and would prefer to split their FICA should vote as though they are over 40 and that is their option. you can post in the thread if you want to specify your age with that one.

Wait a minute, I thought SS was a trust fund. How will opting out affect SS? I've been pay in all these years, and you mean it's been going out to someone? ;)
 
But people will end up not being responsible for themselves. We will not let them starve in the streets.

Why do people always use this talking point? Oh you aren't paying for them! They will starve in the streets! Get real.

Last time I checked that wouldn't happen and frankly its not MY problem. If you are so concerned about it pay for it yourself. Don't force me on the ride like you have a right to do so. You don't.
 
It was a completely unselfish promise in the beginning. We took care of our own elderly citizens, many of whom had lost the farm in the great depression. Should the great depression II come to a city near you, you will not have any money in your old age. No matter how well you conceive, plan, and execute your personal retirement plan, you will be broke and destitute.

Do you still want to rough it on your own?

again, I've run the figures and posted them for all to see. even if you retire in the middle of such a crash, you still do more than twice as well with a personal account as you do with social (in)security.
 
Wait a minute, I thought SS was a trust fund. How will opting out affect SS? I've been pay in all these years, and you mean it's been going out to someone? ;)

:D it's a "trust" "fund" with neither. :D
 
Why do people always use this talking point? Oh you aren't paying for them! They will starve in the streets! Get real.

Last time I checked that wouldn't happen and frankly its not MY problem. If you are so concerned about it pay for it yourself. Don't force me on the ride like you have a right to do so. You don't.

They weren't starving in the streets before SS. Now why is it that without SS it will suddenly start happening now?
 
They weren't starving in the streets before SS. Now why is it that without SS it will suddenly start happening now?

um....yes, they were.

State Old-Age Pensions

Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, poverty among the elderly grew dramatically. The best estimates are that in 1934 over half of the elderly in America lacked sufficient income to be self-supporting. Despite this, state welfare pensions for the elderly were practically non-existent before 1930. A spurt of pension legislation was passed in the years immediately prior to passage of the Social Security Act, so that 30 states had some form of old-age pension program by 1935. However, these programs were generally inadequate and ineffective. Only about 3% of the elderly were actually receiving benefits under these states plans, and the average benefit amount was about 65 cents a day.

There were many reasons for the low participation in state-run pension systems. Many elderly were reluctant to "go on welfare." Restrictive eligibility criteria kept many poor seniors from qualifying. Some jurisdictions, while having state programs on the books, failed to actually implement them. Many of the state-passed pension laws provided for counties within the state to opt to participate in the pension program. As a result, in 1929 of the six states with operating pension laws on the books only 53 of the 264 counties eligible to adopt a pension plan actually did so. After 1929, the States began enacting laws without county options. By 1932 seventeen states had old age pension laws, although none were in the south, and 87% of the money available under these laws were expended in only three states (California, Massachusetts and New York).


America Changes

Despite all of the institutional strategies adopted in early America to assure some measure of economic security, huge changes would sweep through America which would, in time, undermine the existing institutions. Four important demographic changes happened in America beginning in the mid-1880s that rendered the traditional systems of economic security increasingly unworkable:

The Industrial Revolution
The urbanization of America
The disappearance of the "extended" family
A marked increase in life expectancy
The Industrial Revolution transformed the majority of working people from self-employed agricultural workers into wage earners working for large industrial concerns. In an agricultural society, prosperity could be easily seen to be linked to one's labor, and anyone willing to work could usually provide at least a bare subsistence for themselves and their family. But when economic income is primarily from wages, one's economic security can be threatened by factors outside one's control--such as recessions, layoffs, failed businesses, etc.

Along with the shift from an agricultural to an industrial society, Americans moved from farms and small rural communities to large cities--that's where the industrial jobs were. In 1890, only 28% of the population lived in cities, by 1930 this percentage had exactly doubled, to 56%.

Social Security Online
 
um....yes, they were.

Um, no, they weren't. That only says they lacked income to be self sufficient. They lived with family, giving to the next generation while enjoying the comfort of being surrounded by loved ones.

They weren't starving in the streets. Try again.
 
Why should we be getting off our duffs to fix a system of promises that we never made to begin with? Why should we be collectively be supporting society at the expense of supporting ourselves and our loved ones as they age?

It's not a legitimate tax. It's a forced retirement plan that is administered with less efficiency and success than we could do for ourselves. We're not saying we won't let the older generations keep their selfish promises to themselves at our expense...that boat sailed during the Roosevelt administration. But we should be given back control of our futures rather than paying into an insolvent entitlement we never asked for to start with.

i've done it for 37 years, and i never asked for it either. grow up.
 
i've done it for 37 years, and i never asked for it either. grow up.

I'm not the one kicking and screaming tantrums for the next generation to bear the debt of my retirement costs, O' Childish Senior.
 
Um, no, they weren't. That only says they lacked income to be self sufficient. They lived with family, giving to the next generation while enjoying the comfort of being surrounded by loved ones.

They weren't starving in the streets. Try again.

ever hear of the great depression?
 
Back
Top Bottom