Well, I can’t help you with your bias against certain organizations, that’s your own cross to bear. Too bad you are so closed-minded 
I don’t think you are getting my point. If it’s a pension, then you CANNOT make those kinds of changes that will be required to save it. If it’s an entitlement, you must (as the country cannot afford it). Right now, it’s trying to be both.
Because that is not how social insurance works.
I have retired neighbors who would love to give up the ability to send their 45 year old kids to public school in exchange for lower real estate taxes.
I personally am not likely to recover as much from the social security system as I put in, while my housekeeper is likely to recover significantly more than she put in. If you took out participants who would rationally withdraw from the social security system then you end up without a social security system. Perhaps your point is that this is a form of wealth transfer and you would be correct. My social security contributions are subsidizing my housekeeper’s social security benefits (I have been paying maximum social security since I was 22 and my rate of return is 3% or 4% while my housekeeper who didn’t start working until her 40’s is probably going to get 7% to 8% on her "investment).
You can complain that the overall return on investment is low in the socials ecurity fund relative to say the stock market or other investments (the social security fund basically distributes returns from hypothetical treasuries on a progressive basis) but its kind of silly to ask why you can’t opt out of the social security system, that is simply not how social insurance (or taxes for that matter) works.
How do you simoultaneously reduce the cost of employment by 15% while giving that same 15% to the employees to invest? You either get the payroll savings for employers or you get more direct investment opportunity (with teh higher risk and reward that implies) for the employees. I think you mgiht be double counting.
I would be fine with that if your recognize that doing so would require higher income taxes (probably from the high end of the of the income scale) and everything that comes with it, but something tells me you are either forgetting taht none of these programs are fully funded or you are trying to make the point (that everyone already concedes) that these funds are not fully funded. That still doesn’t make social security a Ponzi scheme.
So what’s your transition plan for going from what we have today to a privatized or non-existant social security program?
Because there is no fraud involved. Transfer payments do not equal ponzi scheme.
Did you not see my earlier post, that SS is now paying out more money than it’s taking in? That there is no pile of cash it’s sitting on - they hold gimmicky special T bills that only serve to keep score; the ‘extra’ money that is supposed to be stashed to pay for future retirees goes right out the door in today’s expenditures.
This is completely different than the way a private insurance company would work; they maintain cash reserves and other resources (equities, etc) to both generate future rev and to pay claims.
You don’t seem dumb; can you really not see the difference here?
If you can’t provide a credible cite, the problem is your own.
You can make the changes, and must, so it’s an entitlement that works like a pension. If that’s your point, it’s a meaningless one.
And what, exactly, do we do with these broken people? Those people injured in the coal mines, for instance. Train them to be dog walkers? Computer programmers? Maybe a stern lecture on poor choices and consequences?
They only exist in the hypothetical of the liberal message board poster’s mind. They aren’t actually real.
You’re confusing welfare and a basic safety net with retirement income and an entitlement program. Again. I’m not arguing against welfare and a basic safety net.
And to boot, it’s not even a means-tested entitlement program.
It’s curious that when FDR first proposed SS, he was extremely careful not to conflate the to, because he knew it would never fly.
But you are apparently happy to remove that cloak and lump it all together.
I think we’re done here, Mr Smashy.
We’re playing back their own posts, and their own definitions, to prove why it’s a Ponzi scheme and we’re not getting through.
Maybe another time, on another thread, with different posters. It might work then.
Let them keep that money and purchase insurance on the open market, if they wish to protect themselves against those risks. Or not, if they wish to keep the money.
Close, but not quite.
I want the government to have such a small, fundamental and basic set of duties that it becomes extremely clear what type of leader is required.
And extremely clear what small, but important, set of issues requires the voters maximum attention. And their money.
Perhaps because you’re NOT “playing back ‘their’ own definitions,” but your own mistaken ones.
Do let us know when you’ve learned what a “pyramid scheme” is and why it’s fraudulent, will you? Or at least how welfare IS an entitlement program.
It’s worse than fraud. It’s forced transfer payments, instead of disguised transfer payments, supporting a House of Cards.
See my post above. That’s why it’s a “Fonzi” scheme, not a Ponzi scheme. I stand corrected.
Ref: your posts 135 and 142.
The only part missing is your point about it being fraudulent, which is technically correct. I have addressed that point in my post above.
Problem is that it’s easier said than done. When you throw politics and public opinion into the mix, you turn what should be a simple accounting problem into a huge shitstorm.
No it doesn’t make it a Ponzi scheme. Insurance companies don’t take your premiums and hold them in cash. They take your premiums and hold them mostly in IOUs from corporations, the corporations then use that money to fund their operations. The Social security fund takes cash and invests them in IOUs from the federal treasury, the treasury then uses that money to fund its operations (there are some differences of course, the corporation makes investments taht will create cash flows that will repay the bonds, while the government is not a profitmaking institution so it has different priorities).
that’s fine and there are a lot of reasonable arguments to do so but running around calling it a Ponzi scheme just makes it hard to take you seriously.
I agree. And I think most liberals would like to see social security more as a traditional entitlement that is affected by how much you have worked and paid into the program (and therefore almost invariably support removing the SS cap), while conservatives hold onto the myth taht SS is like a traditional pension which should be converted into a defined contributions plan.
Yoiks.
P1. There are some differences?
You just stated all the difference. All the difference in the world. An investment that creates cash flows is a wealth-generating asset. The ‘Different Priorities’ of the government are precisely those prioritites that do not create wealth. They merely transfer it around, more often than not to wealth-destroying activities. Ref: Ethanol Subsidies. Ref: A Bridge to Nowhere.
You just described the whole shooting match, lock stock and barrel.
Like Elvis1Lives and Dick Dastardly, you are clearly smart enough to see the differences. But somehow, you miss the punchline and draw a bizarre conclusion, almost 180 degrees opposite from the reality of the situation.
P2. Anybody who does not see the difference in the two approaches makes it hard to take them seriously.
I agree with everything you say in this post except this:
While this certainly has a significatn effect, a lot of the problem has to do with the effect of what insurance companies are willing to pay for. If you know you only have to pay for health care until 65, you will not want to pay for preventative care that costs more than what you can save in health care before 65.
But the largest avoidable cost in medicare is end of life treatment. We spend WAAAY too much money keeping people physically alive for an extra month or two at the end of their life hooked up to tubes and machines, etc.
Medicare spends over a quarter of its budget on medical care for the last year of a person’s life. If we could figure out how to cut the cost of medical care for the last year of a person’s life in half, the medicare crisis disappears overnight (heck it takes care of a sigfnificant part of our overall deficit).
While I agree taht a single payer system (combined with reimbursement reform)would do wonders for our overall health care system, it is not likely to reduce the cost of end of life care by itself. We need to realize that old people die and there is little you can (or should) do about it.
Do you understand how risk pooling works? Do you understand how the uninsured impose costs on the system?
Wait a minute isn’t that 15% supposed to be going to the employee in the form of higher pay (wasn’t that he whole point of the “individuals make bnetter investment decisions that faceless bureacrats” argument? Does an extra 15% materialize from out of nowhere in teh form of employer savings as well?).
The costs imposed by Obamacare are not restricting employment. Taxes do not restrict employment the way you think (it would be hard to explain the 50’s, 60’s and 90’s otherwise).
Eliminate workers compensation? You know the world once didn’t have workers compensation and then it became really apparent to every state in the union that workers compensation was necessary.