Damn AARP fruitcakes!

[Debaser]

@Kimstu

As I just pointed out to Debaser in a concurrent GD thread, though, these philosophical reasons (basically translating into emotional attachment to what one thinks of as “one’s own money”) are fundamentally PR rhetoric. Privatization would not give individuals substantially more practical control over “their” money than SS contributors currently have. Nor would it magically prevent the government from changing the laws applying to private accounts in the future. In realistic terms, the money in private accounts would still be taken, managed, and paid out by the government according to the choices made by politicians currently in power.

As I pointed out in the concurrent GD thread, these differences are far from simply emotional ones.

A 401k is simply the result of a government program. A Roth IRA is the result of another government program. Social Security is a third government program.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between these things? Sure, the government could theoretically pass a law tomorrow to take all the money out of any one of these three investments. However, it’s certainly much more likely that Social Security will vanish one day than the other two.

At this point many people, especially young ones, don’t expect Social Security to be there for us when we retire. At best, all we can hope for is very low rates of return, if we get the money we paid in back at all.

If the government even considered looting peoples 401k’s or Roth IRA’s then there would be hell to pay. The fact that they are controlled by the individual makes them much less prone to government prodding. People simply won’t tolerate it.

[RTFirefly]

From post #77:

@RTFirefly

I don’t know if this is real, but on the Philadelphia Craigslist:

Turns out it wasn’t real, and the Social Security Administration intends to investigate.

This, OTOH, looks to be real: one of the SSA Trustees, while remaining in that capacity, has signed on as spokesman for a pro-privatization group.

[Nametag]

@Weirddave

Damn skippy I’m in favor of the idea of privatization in general, however I realize there is a large chance of making things worse if it’s not done properly, which is why I refuse to commit one way or another until I see the details. Considering that a worker making 20K/yr, if he was able to invest his SS payroll taxes in an account with an average real return of 6%, would generate an account worth almost 400K after 40 years, and that such an account would support an annuity that paid him about $1,500/month verses the $800/month that SS promises and the idea begins to make sense. Add to that the fact that the money would be put back to work in the economy and not pissed away by the government and it looks damned attractive. Figure out how to do it without screwing current retirees or adding huge costs to the system (which I have NOT seen yet) and you’d have to be a blithering idiot NOT to support privatization. Then again, I’m already crazy, not only do I believe that my money is mine and not the governments, but I’ve been a huge proponent of means testing for SS benefits for years (that’s right, I have no problems with…wait for it…CUTTING BENEFITS. Heh. that probably made more than a few democrats flinch), in spite of the fact that (assuming everything continues to go as it currently is and as I have planned ) doing so will take me right out of the SS program. I say that even considering that I am self employed and FICA gets me for twice as much as the average Joe, so I stand to be doubly screwed.

Finally Since I am a registered democrat who is an ideological moderate and voted for Kerry, I have to wonder exactly what partisan axe I am supposed to be grinding. Care to enlighten me?

Well. I don’t follow you around from thread to thread, so this thread was the only one informing my suspicions – and indeed, I was right. Gratifying, to be sure, but it was hardly “j’accuse” in the first place. The difference between us is that you seem to think that there’s moral or ethical superiority in pissing away your own money instead of letting the government take its chances; that you seem to think that possession of money, and indeed property in general, confers natural rights that stand head and shoulders above social obligations like caring for the poor, the elderly, and the infirm (I, of course, am not saying that you don’t care; merely that you view these matters through Lockean lenses). I, on the other hand, regard these things as “why I pay taxes,” and I’m willing to pay enough taxes to do the job, and to coerce others to do so as well (someone get Lib some smelling salts).

That’s what I meant by “partisan,” by the way – not the shifting sands of the Democrat/Republican divide, but the rocky valley between socialists like me and whatever-they’re-called like you (what is it called, anyway? I already used “Lockean”). You’ve got an ideological interest in defending the privatization movement, even if you end up rejecting a particular implementation.

And I notice you haven’t addressed my position on AARP’s waffles, you partisan coward.

[Weirddave]

@Nametag

I, on the other hand, regard these things as “why I pay taxes,” and I’m willing to pay enough taxes to do the job, and to coerce others to do so as well

Well that’s the $64,000 question, innit? What exactly is “enough taxes to do the job”, and who determines that? Why not give all of our earnings to the government and allow it to parcel out money as we need it. It would be fun! Just like getting an allowance from daddy all over again! Why, a world in which everyone gave according to his ability and received according to his needs, that would be paradise! We could all vote ourselves rich!

[Jonathan_Chance]

Or why not tax NO ONE and let only the strong survive! Out of luck? Tough luck!

It’s clear to any thinking person that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We don’t want confiscatory taxation but we also don’t want people starving in the streets.

[Weirddave]

@Jonathan Chance

Or why not tax NO ONE and let only the strong survive! Out of luck? Tough luck!

It’s clear to any thinking person that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We don’t want confiscatory taxation but we also don’t want people starving in the streets.

That’s fine, but you’ll notice nowhere have I advocated such a Darwinian process. I have always supported a basic social safety net, WRT SS I’ve always said that there will have to be certain minimums regardless of what one’s private account does, how this translates into my being some kind of screw the poor ogre is beyond me.

[Jonathan_Chance]

I’m just riffing on the other side of your reductio ad absurdum of taxing everything from everyone, sensitive-boy. The middle ground is where we’ll end up.

[Evil_Captor]

@Weirddave

That’s fine, but you’ll notice nowhere have I advocated such a Darwinian process. I have always supported a basic social safety net, WRT SS I’ve always said that there will have to be certain minimums regardless of what one’s private account does, how this translates into my being some kind of screw the poor ogre is beyond me.

I guess my problem with your position is that, whatever your opinion of it, its likely effect is “screw the poor.” People paint me as a socialist because I care about the poor, etc., but I’m really more of a pragmatist than anything else. Any technique, free market-oriented or otherwise, that will keep people healthy and sane works for me. I just wind up fighting free market advocates a lot because you can’t advocate ANYTHING to help the poor (except letting the free market do its thing) without being hijacked by libertarians in the online world.