If you are seeing this, what you are actually seeing is right wing propaganda, directed at a government program that works. A minor increase in the income cap for the tax will fix things right up.
As for the rest, in neither of your cases does a person get a handout. Most people these days will be getting money from both government and private market investments. There is some redistribution for the government case.
In addition, there is no moral obligation to keep people of retirement age from working. That’s not the same as forcing people to work.
There are some social benefits to retirement. First, it opens up positions in the workforce for the young. Second, it transitions increasing health care costs from the private sector to the government. Third, and I’m old enough to say this, there is a point, especially in my business, where you get behind. Those who don’t should be able to stay, but the young have four or eight or 10 years to learn full time, while the rest of us have to force our learning in between meetings. So, a society that basically forced people to work until 80 might not be better off.
I see the OP title as a false dichotomy. if someone is foolish about saving, his retirement will not be a luxury. We do need some minimum support, and Social Security requires people to save for retirement, like it or not, but I see no right to a luxurious retirement.
Thanks for your post Voyager, you’ve given me some things to think about and I feel a little better about the subject.
Why would the right wing be against Social Security? I was always under the impression that it was a “get what you give” sort of system. The main criticism I’ve heard is that the poor pay in too much and receive less benefits. Why call the system broken and insist on a free market solution if a little tweaking is all it needs?
I’m not talking about government corruption. Pretty much every government program only benefits a small minority. Farm subsidies, community development block grants, the bailout of AIG, etc., are sought by only a few and benefit only a few. That’s how big government works – small groups of people try to get as much good stuff from government as the leaders will let them have.
You miss my point. If people truly wanted these things, instead of merely paying lip service to them, we wouldn’t need government to do them. Yes, people may say they want X, but if they aren’t actually willing to put down their own money to accomplish X it’s a pretty clear indication that their desire for X is outweighed by their desire for Y. It’s the difference between what are called “revealed preferences” as opposed to “expressed preferences.” Your true feelings on something are revealed when you must give up something to get it.
Well, careful with the “hard working.” I am posting on the Dope when my family is facing imminent starvation.
The idea that “society” can guarantee my stability makes no sense to me. “Society,” whatever that is, isn’t responsible for taking care of me or feeding my wife and soon-to-be kid. My wife and I share that responsibility. If we can’t do it, our families do or our friends may choose to help. How do you even define “society”? You are really talking about the government. The government gets money from taking it from hard working people like me and giving it to others. But if you want a government big enough to give everyone some sort of stability (and we’d need to define that, too), why even work? If I can have the stability I’m used to without working then I might as well sit on my lazy ass and enjoy the kid. And, frankly, the tax rates for such a government would be so high there would be no point in working in the first place.
But if you’re so troubled about my lack of stability and want to help out by sending me some cash, I’ll happily accept that.
I appreciate your sentiment but don’t feel sorry. I don’t feel sorry about my situation, I just think it sucks.
Wondering why this kind of stuff happens also makes little sense to me. There is no reason. It’s not as if someone is sitting around plotting this. It’s the confluence of a variety of factors that makes my services to a particular company superfluous. I wish they weren’t but they are. No one is to blame. There is no “why” to be answered. It just is.
Because the right is philosophically opposed to big government, and this argument is easier to make if they can show that government messes everything up. Instances of efficiently run government programs are difficult for them to explain. Instance of programs where the government is more efficient than the private sector (like Medicare) are even worse. My grandfather got social security, my father is getting social security, I am certain to get it, and you and my kids will too, unless the Republicans kill it. I see my statement, and while it isn’t enough to live on in the style to which I’ve become accustomed, it is a nontrivial amount .
They’ll say that the alternative is to have government run everything. The actual alternative is to carefully consider who can do a better job, given our social goals. You’ll see how crazy people get about the concept that “socialized medicine” overseas is cheaper and has better outcomes than our system.
That’s part of how government works (and there’s a sliver of intelligent rationale in allowing it because, it might actually be in society’s best interest to do various things for small groups - I admit less corruption would help this part work better). The other part of what government does, though, is to implement the will of the majority, specifically to the aim of organizing programs to supply things that are desired such a majority. An army. A judicial system. Uniform money. Crap like that. And, if enough of the populace are bleeding hearts that care enough about it, social programs are the same category of thing.
Right - but that’s no different when government does it.* Sure, the populace could do it privately, but there’s already a big fricking system in place for collecting money and using or distributing it to meet secified objectives. Admittedly that system has a reputation for being inefficient (even though that’s actually something that varies significantly depending on the program), but the alternatives are privatization which has an adversarial relationship with those it serves (and thus tends to screw them over for its own benefit) and the odd charitable organization, which tend to have limited effectiveness and less resiliance in the face of financial shortages. In all cases the service will cost; it’s just a question of which is the best system to get the job done.
Admittedly, the ridiculous income disparity makes it appealing to think that the uber-rich can and should and will pay for everything, which can make some people think that not-so-rich are just pushing for these things because they’ll be free for them. Though in that case the problem seems to be the income disparaty - only the really poor get a free ride. If you’re anywere close to keeping your head above water, you’re subject to the democratic policy “Tax and Spend” - if you want more bennys from for government (spend), then you’ll have to pay for it (tax).
Oh, nonsense. Sometimes people don’t have the resources or the power, and all the will in the world won’t make a difference.
Your idea of letting private citizens/institutions take care of the elderly will just result in a lot of starving and homeless old people. Just like the good old days. That’s why government aid was instituted in the first place; because people tried things your way, and it failed miserably.
Because they despise any and all forms of aid and social services, save handouts to the wealthy and right wing Christians. They’d eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public defenders, public education, workplace and food safety regulations, and just about any other benevolent function of government.
With thousands of programs, it is clear that most will benefit only a minority. Farm subsidies were meant to support farmers through bad times to stabilize the food supply. What it has become is something else. But there are plenty of programs with very wide benefits: social security, Medicare, the interstate highway system, defense, and support for basic research in NIH and NSF.
Stability, no, I agree with you. How about a safety net? Government can’t keep you from falling off the damn trapeze, but it can keep you from breaking your neck. Not to mention that without some sort of net who would dare to to a quadruple up there? Sure some people might want to stay in the net, but most will want to climb out and climb back up the ladder. So I’d say that for the most part government encourages risk taking, not discourages it.
Do they hate kittens too? No offense, but I don’t see how painting a group of people like that answers anyone’s question.
I looked at the problem a little more in detail after Voyager’s post and discovered this interesting bit from Wikipedia:
“Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, say that Social Security redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy <snip> Therefore, high earners pay a lower percentage of their total income because of the income caps; because of this, payroll taxes are often viewed as being regressive. Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life expectancies and thus may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer period than poorer taxpayers”
I dunno about Der Trihs, but myself I don’t care about any of that, so long as the program stays functional and supports everyone it’s supposed to support until they die. I am not bothered that it doesn’t support them after they’re dead.
(And, it’s regressive? Aren’t the payouts similarly ‘regressive’, in that the rich people don’t get millions of dollars a month when they retire? Correct me if I’m wrong…)
If ***you ***think people have a right to retire even when they can’t afford to, then nobody’s stopping you from sending them money.
And for the record, I’m 63, and will most likely work until I die. Not merely because I can’t afford to retire, but also because I have made the decision to do the work I love, though it doesn’t pay nearly as well as the job I had quit. And I get no benefits, including health insurance. But that’s a choice I made. Other people make other choices.
And besides, if you’re concerned about making someone’s “final years” more comfortable, when exactly do those years begin? You can’t assign a number until the person has died. Some unfortunate people are very young in their “final years.”
Social Security is a regressive tax. However, I doubt this person’s solution is to make it progressive. And the reason it makes sense for Social Security to be somewhat regressive is that the benefits are capped, so it is somewhat unfair for someone to pay on up to a million bucks of income, say and getting benefits as if he paid up to $100K.
One problem is that Social Security is an odd kind of tax. You don’t get back the other taxes you pay later. I’m very sensitive to this thanks to my father. He worked for the UN from 1946 until he retired. (In luxury ) The UN paid taxes for staff members, since most of them were foreign nationals. However the UN did not consider Social Security a tax, and did not pay it. Even worse, since my father officially worked not on US soil (the UN on 42nd street is not part of the US) he had to pay self employment tax. He fought the UN for a decade on this, and finally won. So while I think it is a tax, there is an argument against.
Straw man, or maybe false dilemma. I lean toward the latter, but it could be the former…
There’s multiple reasons. Some people work because they get more rewards out of their job then money, some because it’s nice to spend money you earned, etc.
The most common reason people work because they want more out life then the safety net would give.
Sure you could live in a subsidized apartment on food stamps and welfare, but you won’t get luxeries like being to go out to eat in nice restaurants, or even McDonalds very often, being able to travel, dressing in anything better then walmart glurge, and good luck if you want a car. You won’t even be able to afford the insurance.
No kidding. We could set the poverty line at “Live in a subsidized apartment with basic food, clothes, and a small color TV (but no cable)” without drying out the workforce - in fact it would only drain out the slackers who you don’t want to have working next to you anyway.
Yes, I believe society has a moral obligation to provide a retirement for people over a certain age. It doesn’t have to be a vacation home in the Bahamas – just enough money to cover room, board, and medical care, and only if they can’t pay for it themselves.
I’d rather live in a society that provides this kind of safety net. I hope to be able to retire on my own someday, but it would be nice to know that there’s some kind of failsafe in place in case I lose my savings for whatever reason. The idea that I may have to work until the day I die (or am too feeble to get to work) saddens and frightens me a little. These kinds of vague worries that a person keeps in the back of his mind, no matter how much you may dismiss them as unreasonable or insignificant, have a tendancy to build up over time and have a negative impact on a person’s quality of life. I’ll gladly donate a few dollars from my paycheck to make these worries go away.
There’s no inherent right to anything. But there are certain “rights” that we’ve decided that are necessary for a fulfilling life as humans and citizens. I don’t think retirement is in the same league with things like free speech, but maybe it’s in a lower tier.
But our current approach is more pragmatic. The idea being that we try to have as free a market as is possible, but for things in which the free market either isn’t good at providing or has failed to provide in a particular society, we have to step in. Social Security came about because our particular free market was failing to adequately provide in this area. If the free market or some other societal mechanism were providing for seniors then we wouldn’t need it.
Plus, the life of seniors is in some way comparable to that of children. Both are in phases of life where it is naturally harder to provide for oneself.
Here in the UK, we have a main State Pension based on how long you’ve worked. It comes in at 60 for women and 65 for men (soon to be 65 for all).
It’s not a lot - a single person gets £63 ($114) a week and is taxable.
Your employer and you usually make payments for an industry pension, plus you can make your own investment. If an former employee dies, his family may get a reduced pension.
Here is a good site to answer questions about UK State pensions. (There is a second State Pension, plus Income Support.)
‘During the 18th century the poor relied on the Elizabethan “poor laws”. The parishes had to support the poor and sick but not the “work shy”. However the conditions of the notorious poorhouses and a growing social awareness, thanks to writers like Charles Dickens, meant that by the end of the 19th century, state intervention had become a vote winner.’
