the faux-choice movement

[corplinx]

There have been a few articles recently about Bush not being a limited government type and instead being for more choices.

Medicare:
Pick the gubment or a private plan? Optional special savings account.

Soc. Sec:
You get a choice for the government plan or having your own optional retirement savings account.

Schools:
get a voucher and use it at a government or private school

Now, choice sounds good. Choice is more politically expedient than real reform. Instead of fixing a broken program, you add alternatives.

However, I will contend that there is no such thing as choice and long as there is no way to opt-out entirely. How about letting me not pay any social security or medicare taxes at all and not be covered by those programs? How about letting me keep my education money in the first place instead of handing me a voucher.

 

[Tony]

However, I will contend that there is no such thing as choice and long as there is no way to opt-out entirely. How about letting me not pay any social security or medicare taxes at all and not be covered by those programs? How about letting me keep my education money in the first place instead of handing me a voucher.

I agree, but you have to remember that we are tax slaves and ultimatly have no rights.

 

[mumchup]

I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.
If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

 

[corplinx]

I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high.

The 1999-2002 stock market was a great time to be an investor, not a trader. Investors could buy lucrative tech stocks at sometimes below their real value.

 

[corplinx]

If I know Americans (and I am one) everyone would still expect to receive a full retirement from the U.S. Government regardless of how their personal investments did. And some of the people who decide to opt out of the system entirely may end up burdening society in their old age, if they failed to save enough themselves.

That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

 

[jj]

That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be ◊◊◊◊ outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

 

[corplinx]

So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be ◊◊◊◊ outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't see that assertion anywhere in my post you replied to.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

So, the people who have already been footing the bill for 40 years should be ◊◊◊◊ outta luck when it's their time to collect?

DID YOU REALLY MEAN THAT?

I am in my mid-30's and am pretty resigned to the fact that despite the fact that I have been paying into social security since I was old enough to start working, I am going to be Sh!t outta luck when it comes time for me to retire. Therefore, I am not counting on it at all and am taking my retirement concerns into my own hands. I would be perfectlyhappy to cut my losses to date and put all the money that I am currently putting into social security (which, as I said, I fully expect to never see again or get any benefit from anyway) and put it into my own retirement accounts. From what I ahve seen among my friends my age, I am far from the only one who thinks this way

 

[mumchup]

That's the point, you are a burden to society if you recieve any sort of social security benefit at all currently since society pays your social security checks.

Some people don't even need the income and still get it. Meanwhile I foot the bill.

My point was that many people who would not pay into S.S. would still get money or assistance paid for by those of us who did contribute. You get a Social Security check when you retire IF you (or your deceased spouse) paid into the system when you were working.
I've gotten updates from the SSA mailed to me showing how much I have paid so far in my lifetime, and how much I would get at retirement based on how much I've paid in so far.
It makes sense in theory, but I don't expect that there will be much left for me after the Boomers get finished claiming their "Fair Share"

 

[corplinx]

faux-choice for a faux-trust fund

gotta love it

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: the faux-choice movement

I agree, but you have to remember that we are tax slaves and ultimatly have no rights.

How can you write this stupid ◊◊◊◊ daily?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: the faux-choice movement

How can you write this stupid ◊◊◊◊ daily?

How can you? Answer that, and you've answered your question.

 

[jj]

I am in my mid-30's and am pretty resigned to the fact that despite the fact that I have been paying into social security since I was old enough to start working, I am going to be Sh!t outta luck when it comes time for me to retire. Therefore, I am not counting on it at all and am taking my retirement concerns into my own hands. I would be perfectlyhappy to cut my losses to date and put all the money that I am currently putting into social security (which, as I said, I fully expect to never see again or get any benefit from anyway) and put it into my own retirement accounts. From what I ahve seen among my friends my age, I am far from the only one who thinks this way

Well, I'm a whole lot older than you are, I've put a great deal into my own retirement accounts, both deferred and undeferred, and I've also paid a s**tload into Social Serickety that I could have dumped into an IRA.

I presume, then, that you assume that we (you and I both) are just SOL as far as the money "paid in". (quotes of contempt, as you seem to understand)

I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back.


In other words, I am not willing to write it off, even if it looks like it will be hard to get.

Social Serickety of the "only if they need it" variety does nothing but penalize those who have sense and brains. It should be illegal to penalize those who have sense and brains, i.e. they ought to get their money back too.

(end of quiet rant)

 

[jj]

It makes sense in theory, but I don't expect that there will be much left for me after the Boomers get finished claiming their "Fair Share"

Actually, it doens't make sense in theory, mumchup, because it was turned into a pyramid scheme, but about those boomers claiming their "fair share", please explain to me, carefully, and directly, how it is NOT my "fair share". I paid in like everyone else had to, it is, by hades and condemnation, my fair share. So why the quotes?

Why do you appear to dislike the fact that it IS the boomer's fair share?

 

[shanek]

Medicare:
Pick the gubment or a private plan? Optional special savings account.

With, of course, the option to use the guns of government to take money from others by force to pay for your medical care.

Soc. Sec:
You get a choice for the government plan or having your own optional retirement savings account.

Although you only get to choose for 2% of it, and even then only from choices that are Bush-approved. Plus, the same as above.

Schools:
get a voucher and use it at a government or private school

Whereupon they can then start making bureaucratic rules for private schools just like they did with private colleges.

The only REAL choice would be to get the government out of all these areas and let people truly decide for themselves.

 

[shanek]

I feel that giving The People control over their Social Security money is a bad idea. When this idea first became popular a few years ago, the stock market was sky high. Alot of people ended up losing money, and they would have lost their Social Security money as well if given the chance.

This is complete and total bull$#!7. In the early 1980s, Galveston County, TX became the only county in the country to privatize Social Security (because Congress closed the loophole almost immediately after they did it). Since then, the people of Galveston County have seen returns over THREE TIMES in excess of what Social Security would have brought them. NONE of that money—NOT A SINGLE DILLAR—was in the stock market. And even if it were put into the stock market, even with the drags of the most recent crash and the crash around 1990, the addition of the stock market would have risen the amount to FIVE TIMES what they would have received under SS. Why? Because retirement investments are LONG TERM and therefore not much affected by short term losses in the stock market.

Know what you're talking about before you go making claims like that.

 

[shanek]

I think it was taken, somebody has to give it back.

Unfortunately, there's no "it" to give back anymore. The politicians have already squandered away all of the money you have put into it. The best way is for the Libertarian plan as designed by Harry Browne to be put into effect, whereby unused/unneeded government assets are sold off to provide private annuities for people who are either on Social Security or will be retiring in the next ten years or so. The rest of us will be sh!t outta luck, but then, we are anyway. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that's just not going to last.

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: the faux-choice movement

How can you? Answer that, and you've answered your question.

Look, Tony, there's no need to compare my posts to yours; I am not interested in embarrassing you.

Your replies, and this thread is a perfect example, often contain a single incendinary unsupported assertion. Either that person's an authoritarian or this policy is tantamount to slavery. In another case, which I drew out for awhile, you equated government regulations on the size of a toilet bowl to cameras watching people inside their homes. Really f*cking stupid stuff.

It doesn't bother me most of the time. But then, most mornings I don't read stories about real life slaves.

 

[Segnosaur]

Actually, it doens't make sense in theory, mumchup, because it was turned into a pyramid scheme, but about those boomers claiming their "fair share", please explain to me, carefully, and directly, how it is NOT my "fair share". I paid in like everyone else had to, it is, by hades and condemnation, my fair share. So why the quotes?

Why do you appear to dislike the fact that it IS the boomer's fair share?

I'm not sure exactly how things work in the U.S., but here in Canada, the payments to current retirees are paid for out of current contributions. (In other words, the government doesn't actually save and invest your money.)

When the baby boomer generation was working, there were relatively few retirees. (One retiree may have 5 working people to support them.) When the boomer generation retires, there will be relatively fewer workers paying into the system (so, for example 1 retiree will have only 2 working people to support them.)

So, baby boomers may have had to pay X% of their income into social security. The generation after them has to pay Y%, where Y>X, in order to guarantee the same retirement income. Then, when that post-boomer generation retires themselves, the generation after them may be able to go back to paying X%.

So, while its not a total loss for the post-boomer generation, its still not fair that they have to pay extra.

(Again, that's the Canadian system, and it assumes no immediate changes to the retirement plans.)

 

[Segnosaur]

In the early 1980s, Galveston County, TX became the only county in the country to privatize Social Security . Since then, the people of Galveston County have seen returns over THREE TIMES in excess of what Social Security would have brought them. NONE of that money—NOT A SINGLE DILLAR—was in the stock market. And even if it were put into the stock market, even with the drags of the most recent crash and the crash around 1990, the addition of the stock market would have risen the amount to FIVE TIMES what they would have received under SS. Why? Because retirement investments are LONG TERM and therefore not much affected by short term losses in the stock market.

Although I think the social security system (at least here in Canada) needs reform, I do think your 'example' needs more explaining. For example, where were the people in Galveston allowed to invest their money? Was there a set percentage they had to donate? (Requiring fixed percentages, or forcing people into 'safe' investments seems rather, well, anti-libertarian, doesn't it?)

Another issue: You say that the stock market would have risen more than 5 times compared to what they would have in SS. Problem is, not all investments track the performance of the stock market. Are you going to force people to invest in something like an index fund? What if someone puts their 'retirement' money into something like Enron. Not everyone makes 'wise' investment choices; what will you do with the people who basically 'loose' all their retirement money? (Starve to death, put them on an ice flow in the arctic, soylent green, etc.)