No Taxes or No SS - Which Would You Choose??

[wzd]

The safety net, and no way to lose it aspects of SS are important. I wouldn't change them. My parents got divorced at 50+, and mom took her money, bought a place and ran an antique business. She eventually sold, and went thru her money quickly. She never learned to plan, manage money, etc. Now she only has SS, and a place to live my sister and I got for her. Without the safety net of SS, she, and many like her, would have NOTHING.

wzd....She eventually sold, and went thru her money quickly. She never learned to plan, manage money, etc. Now she only has SS, and a place to live my sister and I got for her. Without the safety net of SS, she, and many like her, would have NOTHING.

Ah yes, but you see wzd if your mother didn't plan and blew the wad, you and your sister are supposed to support her. Forever. Just like the olden days. Sins of the Father and all that. (Or The Mother in this case). And if yoiur father and sister and Uncle Larry were in the same basket then you should have to support tem too. At least, that's the way the economics is suppsoed to work. They never tell you where the money is supposed to come from though. As if capitalism really paid that well for the lower 99.9%

[Michael]

Without the safety net of SS, she, and many like her, would have NOTHING.

I think the safety net is a good idea. However, putting spend happy politicians in charge of the trust fund is a very bad idea. Because of it, there is nothing left but IOUs. The trust fund should be controlled by someone different, whose only charge is to protect it. They could place it in international index funds, buy commodities, etc... The money would then be there for retirees when they need it.

Since the Great Society of the 1960's , the Govt. has borrowed 12 trillion dollars from SS. The Govt. has spent our SS money on welfare programs in the US and all over the world. The only way to save SS is to put the US Congress's retirement funding in the SS fund, then they would spend it more carefully.

[Brat]

The only way to save SS is to put the US Congress's retirement funding in the SS fund,

Ah, but they are today. They have SS, and a 401K.

No, Congress has a retirement fund of their own. That is why they spend borrowed SS money on everything. It doesn't effect them at all.

Since the Great Society of the 1960's , the Govt. has borrowed 12 trillion dollars from SS. The Govt. has spent our SS money on welfare programs in the US and all over the world. The only way to save SS is to put the US Congress's retirement funding in the SS fund, then they would spend it more carefully.

Another way to look at it is that the SS fund invested in US Treasuries. This seems very reasonable. The fact that the government can't balance their expenditures is another issue.

Looks like SS will be 'saved' via even more borrowing. This will be exacerbated by the government's plan to divert money from the fund into 'private' accounts.

Congress is "on the hook" for SS like everybody else

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

The reason why the piss it away is because they are otherwise very very well-off, and as such:

A) Have no need to worry about how much they pay in payroll taxes and

B) Have no need to worry about the impact the nickles and dimes of a SS will have on their standard of living

But you are right in that since they have no material dog in that race they don't feel the effects of it. Ergo there can be no common values or shared virtues leading to any kind of solution. Class Warfare

Who is Ayn Rond?

[Michael]

Looks like SS will be 'saved' via even more borrowing.

It won't last. Every past salvation was followed a few years later by yet another cry that the system was doomed, and needed more salvation.

[Helios]

Interesting that this latest attempt at SS salvation is promoted by Alan Greespan, a devotee and was a very close personal friend of Ann Rand.

Re. the Greenspan/Rand connection. Some irony there for sure. An aside for you non-Randians. She took her
name from her first typewriter, a Remington Rand.
No kidding...............

JG

[SDY888]

As I started this thread, here is my two penn'eth.

Having experienced various forms of Government in several places, the most powerful impression made by all of them is that Government of any ideaology is basically the worst organisation to achieve anything efficiently, effectively or, in many cases, even competently. They should be restricted to basically only those activities that a Society cannot effectively identify, manage, organise or implement on it's own. (NB: Before all the Government employees jump all over me, I believe that the politics behind the policies is largely to blame, rather than the implementation at the operational level. Having said that, Governments do tend to over reward their own employees for reasons other than ability or performance).

In my experience, whichever system of state directed benevolence is adopted, the same problems occur - most people take out more than they ever put in and the younger, infant or even unborn generations are immediately burdened with filling the future contributions gap. Additionally, the natural consequence of reward driven behaviour manifests itself - if the populace knows, or at least believes that ''the State will take of me'', a large proportion of said population will not take measures to provide for themselves, thus creating a bigger financial burden.

Just imagine if a Government decreed that all future social security benefits are cancelled for anyone currently below the age of 30 - suddenly those people KNOW that they will have to provide for themselves, but have 35 years to do something about it. Change or remove the reward and the consequential behaviour changes.

I do not necessarily advocate the approach in this extreme example, but I do feel that the greater the safety net that exists, the less responsible people generally tend to be.

Effectively, any Government promise of future support equates to a subsidy of the current lifestyle.

Any Society, in my view, should be responsible only for the weakest and least able. Hence not only means testing, prior to receiving state support, but also ability testing, should be an inherent part of the way a Society compulsorily redistributes it's wealth. Give generously to ''the cannots'' * but give short shrift to the ''will nots''.

Overall net reduction in the cost to a country and to it's individual citizens could be enormous. Not only would taxes fall significantly, but real financial freedom from Government waste and excess would result. True universal health care and education could made be available by removing the future cost of supporting people who could and should provide for themselves. This has been amply demonstrated in the few places that have adopted these hands off types of system, the only difference is in the attitude of the populations who do not expect anything from the Government and behave accordingly. Indeed, they tend to complain when the Government interferes.

Consider the basic philosophy of a reasonable justice system contrasted with the philosophy most Government Social Security systems: the justice system inevitably punishes some innocents, but that is considered an acceptable price to pay to protect the majority. The Social Security System punishes the innocent majority in order to provide protection to the guilty minority.

***It goes without saying that the ''cannots'' referred to are primarily the physically and mentally disabled and the like.

[Michael]

Just imagine if a Government decreed that all future social security benefits are cancelled for anyone currently below the age of 30 - suddenly those people KNOW that they will have to provide for themselves, but have 35 years to do something about it.

They didn't do such a good job before Social Security was enacted, that is the reason it was enacted to begin with. FDR saw multitudes of elderly living in poverty.

[SDY888]

They didn't do such a good job before Social Security was enacted, that is the reason it was enacted to begin with. FDR saw multitudes of elderly living in poverty.

Michael

Agreed, but the crucial difference is that society as a whole has since benefited from greater access to universal education beyond about 14 years of age, far greater freedom of movement and mobility, higher comparative disposable incomes and a general increase in the sense of personal ability to changes ones circumstances.

I suppose this harking back would also include a preference for indentured apprenticeships and tied housing?

Societies generally are far more educated and aware of the possibilities than at any time in the past (that is true at any point in time I suppose) so to perpetuate the same rigid dogma without reference to the contemporary social psyche is a hindrance to development and progress.

As I said, a form of Governmental safety net is necessary for any society to consider itself developed, but it should no longer be blinkered to realities of the contemporary world and the abilities of the people in it to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves to greater degree.

[bruce1]

I beleive the majority of people still would not save. The attitude of live for today for tomorrow I may be dead would prevail.

Simon, I agree with you in concept, of course. I too
long for the days of unintrusive government, when they
handled national defense, international trade, enforced
contracts (and ran a surplus )etc etc. Unfortunately,
we are not going back. Instead, we will continue forward into the night of Orwellian groupspeak.
I also agree with Bruce that many many would take
the "live for today I may be dead tomorrow" approach.
In my "perfect" world, everyone would be free to make that choice and to suffer the consequences. And, one
more thing. People may be better educated today
but I see no evidence whatsoever that they are getting smarter.

JG

[retire@40]

As I said, a form of Governmental safety net is necessary for any society to consider itself developed, but it should no longer be blinkered to realities of the contemporary world and the abilities of the people in it to make decisions and take responsibility for themselves to greater degree.

I agree in theory, but most people are so stupid about finances they would not make it without government help. Even with government help they still almost can't make it.

I just don't like the government taking my money to give to someone else. I would rather save my own money, but realizing that most people are stupid and don't know how to manage their fiances, I would want to have the government allow me to put those forced payroll taxes into my own account so even if I die, it will go to my children or other relatives.

[Michael]

Agreed, but the crucial difference is that society as a whole has since benefited from greater access to universal education beyond about 14 years of age...

Yes, but remember that most people were educated by the government in the public school system. *How can you think this helps in light of your statement:

Government of any ideaology is basically the worst organisation to achieve anything efficiently, effectively or, in many cases, even competently.

Yes, but remember that most people were educated by the government in the public school system. *How can you think this helps in light of your statement:

People educate themselves. The government only provides the opportunity.