[macintologist]

I'm a sophmore in college and I started a Roth IRA almost a year ago. So far I have allocated a little over $200 to my IRA in that time period. Of course when I have steady full time employment it will be a lot more. One thing about looking at my pay stubs from summer work, is that I am thouroughly pissed that 6% of my paycheck is seized from me by the government to be put in the social security trust fund.

There is something seriously wrong in this country when most people you talk to don't think there's anything wrong with me being forced to participate in social security. Can anyone please justify being forced to particupate in this ponzi scheme.

It's one thing when the government sends you a form on your 18th birthday (similar to the selective service notice for 18 year old males) notifying you of the opportunities surrounding the Social Security program and how participation in this program will mean a confortable retirement and peace of mind.

It's another thing when I am given absolutely no choice in the matter.

Somebody please justify this.


Update: This IRS form 4029 should be available to EVERYONE and not just some sham religious groups.

[itai195]

If you think 6% is bad, try being self-employed

That said, seems like you've already made up your mind regarding the value of social security.

[Sage]

It can’t be justified – it’s theft.

And come join the Libertarian Club!

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by itai195

If you think 6% is bad, try being self-employed

That said, seems like you've already made up your mind regarding the value of social security.

From a general perspective, it has nothing to do with whether or not social security is a good/valueable program. It has everything to do with whether or not I should be forced to participate.

[macintologist]

I wrote Steve Kagen, the democratic candidate for the 8th district of Wisconsin, and this is the bullshit response I got back:

To Steve Kagen:

As a student and a young worker, I would like to be given the option of not participating in social security. I have opene d a Roth IRA account and will steadily save, thus taking care of my own retirement. I don't appreciate that I am not given a choice and that 6% of my paycheck is taken from me without my consent. Please fight for my right to choose whether or not I want to participate in social security.

Dear ----------:

Social Security is our sacred contract from one generation to the next. It guarantees that our elders can live in their own house - not in he poor house.
it was never designed to be a retirement account.

You must decide if you wish to live in a society that really cares about everyone in the community - instead of only one's own selfish needs. Think about it. You will live a better and more complete life when you are surrounded by your friends and not only a check book.

Join us! Help me build a better future for all of us, every where in these United states.

Best regards,

Steve Kagen, M.D.

[vmarks]

As far as I know, President Bush was the only president to even propose briefly the possibility to move to plan that allowed for opting out of of social security.

It didn't get very far.

Still, you're right, it amounts to one generation stealing from another by way of government.

The favored alternative is to put all that you would have contributed to SocSec to go to an interest bearing govt savings accnt.

We discussed all these options a few years ago when President Bush first proposed the idea.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rm#post2153411

and

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...rm#post2391332

[Spliffdaddy]

If you're Amish - you can opt out of Social Security.

[goMac]

Ha. You think $200 is bad...

Anyway, as much as it sucks not having the money now, it'll keep me happy when I'm older. A little patience for a nice payoff down the road.

[Chuckit]

It's a fundamental problem with Social Security. It's not a retirement account. If people can opt out of it, that screws the whole system. It's like a pyramid scheme.

[Spliffdaddy]

If it's not a retirement account, then why do its supporters claim old people will starve and end up on the streets if we stop the program?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's not a retirement account, then why do its supporters claim old people will starve and end up on the streets if we stop the program?

If cars have wheels then why can't penguins fly?

Social security is an insurance program, not a retirement account.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by goMac

Ha. You think $200 is bad...

Anyway, as much as it sucks not having the money now, it'll keep me happy when I'm older. A little patience for a nice payoff down the road.

Talk to me when you're older and tell me if it's keeping you happy.

My suspicion is that you'll throw a cane at some whippersnapper and talk about how SocSec isn't doing enough for you.

[Cody Dawg]

Frankly, if it keeps poor retirees alive, it's not too bad.

BUT, we should be able to deduct it from our taxes.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's not a retirement account, then why do its supporters claim old people will starve and end up on the streets if we stop the program?

Because they will...

The misconception is that the money I put in will help me when I retire. That's not the way it works. The money that I put in goes to the current generation of retirees, it doesn't get saved, invested, or anything else, just immediately redistributed. If our generation stops paying, our grandparents, many of whom either couldn't or didn't plan adequately for retirement, are screwed.

I'm not a big fan of Social Security, but it's one of the few taxes that I would have a hard time justifying just getting rid of. If we're going to do away with it, we should probably keep it around at least until the current generation of retirees dies off, giving our parents at least a little time to make other arrangements, and making sure that our generation definitely knows what it's getting into.

[osiris]

Some of you need accountants if you're currently bleeding money to the IRS/SS. There is no other way around the issue.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

If cars have wheels then why can't penguins fly?

Social security is an insurance program, not a retirement account.

The amount that gets taken from us per person would buy a hell of a lot of insurance.

Despite the intentions of those who created it, SS is just another source of cash for the spend-happy dipshits in Washington dip into.

And despite the real reasons for starting SS it IS used as a retirement account by many.

When they started the program the age was 5 years OVER the average life span of Americans. Now it's a decade BELOW. I would be glad to see the whole thing scrapped but that'll never happen. So I think the age should be about 80 and the benefit should be lower. But we can't have that because even though these people had FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS to prepare for retirement, they MUST have that government check or they will all surely starve to death!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Because they will...

The misconception is that the money I put in will help me when I retire. That's not the way it works. The money that I put in goes to the current generation of retirees, it doesn't get saved, invested, or anything else, just immediately redistributed. If our generation stops paying, our grandparents, many of whom either couldn't or didn't plan adequately for retirement, are screwed.

There you have it. SS is welfare for old people.

[davesimondotcom]

Social Security is a broken system. However, anytime someone proposes doing anything to fix it, change it, or update it, the fear mongers bring out the images of old people living/dying in the streets and eating dog food.

Truth is, Social Security will be bankrupt by the time most of us get to that age, but we don't have as strong of a lobby as the generations ahead of us. There is no AATSRP (American Association of Those Supporting Retired People.)

[Dr Reducto]

SS Reform is one thing that I was really really in favor of Bush doing.

If I was allowed to take 6% (plus what my employer contributed), and invest/save it, i'd have a kickass retirement deal going. But instead, I get to pay into this pyramid scheme. It really makes me mad, and even more mad that a powerful advocacy group (the AARP) is incredibly resistant to change (they need to sell their mutual fund).

This is also why i'm opposed to public healthcare. Why not just let me keep the tax money and decide what level of care I want?

[BRussell]

I'd much rather opt out of the war in Iraq, the interest on the debt, illegal surveillance, the money to pay for water boards, and any number of other things I don't like. If paying to make sure our grandparents aren't in poverty is what really gets your goat, out of all the things our government does, that tells us something about your values.

[n8236]

Social Security has now become nothing more than liability than what it used to be, turning into a cycle of overburden for future generations. Anyone relying on it to retire better get a reality check and be prepared to eat $1 McDonalds from there on out.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Social Security is a broken system. However, anytime someone proposes doing anything to fix it, change it, or update it, the fear mongers bring out the images of old people living/dying in the streets and eating dog food.

Truth is, Social Security will be bankrupt by the time most of us get to that age, but we don't have as strong of a lobby as the generations ahead of us. There is no AATSRP (American Association of Those Supporting Retired People.)

Our federal government is bankrupt now, and no one seems to care. SS is in surplus, and will continue to be for many years. I really don't understand why people get worked up about social security - one part of our government spending - being projected to maybe go into "bankruptcy," but no one cares that the government as a whole has been driven into actual "bankruptcy" by the policies enacted in the last 5 years.

[Mithras]

clap, clap.
EDIT: Christ, two posts between my reading BRussell's great statement and my response.

[n8236]

From what data suggests, SS won't go bankrupt if it gets tweaked from its current state. There is an imbalance of working people paying into the system and of those retiring/retired in the next 10-15 years.

The US runs on debt because we are a highly credible country and source of income, thus we are able to finance our overzealous spending by consumers and gov't alike. But other developing counrties will not able to finance our hunger forever and that is why it is HIGHLY recommended that Americans curb their spending habits and save for their retirement future.

SS will have to be around unless the gov't finds a way to reward those who becomes opted out by paying into the system. Because SS uses the current gen to pay for the retiring/retired gen, it's a deadly cycle.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Our federal government is bankrupt now, and no one seems to care. SS is in surplus, and will continue to be for many years. I really don't understand why people get worked up about social security - one part of our government spending - being projected to maybe go into "bankruptcy," but no one cares that the government as a whole has been driven into actual "bankruptcy" by the policies enacted in the last 5 years.

People like me care about the debt, too. However, the reason Social Security is particularly frustrating is because I end up paying a huge chunk of what I earn (I'm self employed so I pay the employer AND employee end) for a program that most people recognize will not be available when I retire.

I'm struggling to make ends me RIGHT NOW. What about me dying on the streets or eating dog food? Doesn't matter. Come April, I have to right out that check.

I don't want Social Security, as a program, to go away. I just would like to have a free and open debate about how to fix it. WITHOUT the over-exaggerations and scare tactics. Just a good, common sense analysis of what can be done to make the program better.

If it was "fixed" so that those paying into the program were guaranteed to get the same benefits when they are retirement age, I'd not hesitate to write that check.

Consider this, though, as well. My grandparents are 85. Been married 65 years. My grandfather served in the Army in WWII, but didn't end up getting sent overseas. He then worked nearly 40 years for fairly good-sized company. My grandmother was a schoolteacher for 30 years or so.

They both retired in 1982. They live in the same home that they bought for less than $2000 in 1945. It's now worth at least $1 Million. They both pull down pensions - one from the state of California, the other from a private company. Yet, Social Security is paying their bills, the rest is going to savings.

How many careers nowadays provide pensions like jobs back then? They don't. You have to invest in your own retirement if you want to have something. Very, very few companies have pension funds. Why? They don't work. In the long run, they get top-heavy.

So companies have adjusted the way they do things, setting up retirement programs that offer the chance for more money in retirement at greater risk. So the person can decide how they invest their money.

Sound familiar?

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by macintologist

I'm a sophmore in college and I started a Roth IRA almost a year ago. So far I have allocated a little over $200 to my IRA in that time period. Of course when I have steady full time employment it will be a lot more. One thing about looking at my pay stubs from summer work, is that I am thouroughly pissed that 6% of my paycheck is seized from me by the government to be put in the social security trust fund.

There is something seriously wrong in this country when most people you talk to don't think there's anything wrong with me being forced to participate in social security. Can anyone please justify being forced to particupate in this ponzi scheme.

It's one thing when the government sends you a form on your 18th birthday (similar to the selective service notice for 18 year old males) notifying you of the opportunities surrounding the Social Security program and how participation in this program will mean a confortable retirement and peace of mind.

It's another thing when I am given absolutely no choice in the matter.

Somebody please justify this.




Update: This IRS form 4029 should be available to EVERYONE and not just some sham religious groups.

Just to make this clear, it's not a 6% deduction, it's 6.2%. And it is matched by a like amount from your employer. So, in effect, there is 12.4% of your 'cost of employment' being withheld.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Our federal government is bankrupt now, and no one seems to care. SS is in surplus, and will continue to be for many years. I really don't understand why people get worked up about social security - one part of our government spending - being projected to maybe go into "bankruptcy," but no one cares that the government as a whole has been driven into actual "bankruptcy" by the policies enacted in the last 5 years.

Well, I for one think it is important that people be allowed to opt out of Social Security. It's hardly fair that the wealthy should be paid monies they don't really need. They should be able to opt out of getting their payments.

[Dork.]

Here's the thing: if we let people opt out of Social Security, there will be some people who elect to opt out but elect not to save, (or even some people who save, but have to tap their savings due to unforseen critical expenses, like medical expenses) and then when they get older and have no money we're going to end up subsidising them anyway, either through their medical coverage of through welfare. As a country, we're not going to let old people die in the streets, even if they were irresponsable and did not save. So, one way or another, young people's taxes will be going to fund old people. We may as well admit it, and move on! (I think the "Social Security Statements" are doing more harm than good, by making people think that their SS payments are actually being saved in an "account" for them....)

Besides, the Social Security Surplus is a big piggy-bank for polititians. Think about it: even if Surplus funds are put in a "lock box", what does that really mean? It means that Social Security funds are put into an account which is invested in the safest, most conservative manner. What is the most conservative long-term investment? US treasury bills. So, the Social Security Administration buys a bunch of T-bills. Voila! The Social Security money is still in a "Lock Box", only now it can be spent by the Government!

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, I for one think it is important that people be allowed to opt out of Social Security. It's hardly fair that the wealthy should be paid monies they don't really need. They should be able to opt out of getting their payments.

I'm sorry, but you think I should not be entitled to monies I've been forced to pay for the last 40 years? How do you determine whether or not I 'need' it?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, I for one think it is important that people be allowed to opt out of Social Security. It's hardly fair that the wealthy should be paid monies they don't really need. They should be able to opt out of getting their payments.

midwinter! I didn't know you had 1000+ posts here.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

People like me care about the debt, too. However, the reason Social Security is particularly frustrating is because I end up paying a huge chunk of what I earn (I'm self employed so I pay the employer AND employee end) for a program that most people recognize will not be available when I retire.

I think the idea that the program won't exist in a couple decades is unwarranted. There's just as good of a possibility that immigration and higher-than-estimated birth rates will keep social security solvent indefinitely. By this same logic, the Department of Defense is bankrupt now. We aren't taking as much money into it as we're spending on it - which is the exact same definition used for saying SS is going bankrupt. Does the Department of Defense still exist? Of course. We just run it on debt. We shouldn't do that, but there's no reason why, if the Defense Department is run with debt, we couldn't run SS with debt in exactly the same way, if it comes to that. It's really just a matter of which programs you like and which you don't like, it's not anything factually related to their solvency.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell

there's no reason why, if the Defense Department is run with debt, we couldn't run SS with debt in exactly the same way, if it comes to that.

But wouldn't doing that just fuel inflation and reduce the value of the SS payouts, still stiffing the old folks?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I think the idea that the program won't exist in a couple decades is unwarranted. There's just as good of a possibility that immigration and higher-than-estimated birth rates will keep social security solvent indefinitely. By this same logic, the Department of Defense is bankrupt now. We aren't taking as much money into it as we're spending on it - which is the exact same definition used for saying SS is going bankrupt. Does the Department of Defense still exist? Of course. We just run it on debt. We shouldn't do that, but there's no reason why, if the Defense Department is run with debt, we couldn't run SS with debt in exactly the same way, if it comes to that. It's really just a matter of which programs you like and which you don't like, it's not anything factually related to their solvency.

So, what you are saying is that since the *********s we have in office can't spend money properly anyway, they might as well let the SS system go as is even if it puts us into further debt.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

But wouldn't doing that just fuel inflation and reduce the value of the SS payouts, still stiffing the old folks?

Well you deleted the part of the sentence where I said "we should do that." Many of us were opposed to Bush's "cut taxes and increase spending" plan from the beginning, and supported the consensus from the late 1990s that we should have surpluses going into the baby boomers' retirement in order to deal with the shortfall that will probably occur.

My point is that I believe it's disingenuous to go on about how SS is dead and bankrupt, when it's actually in surplus, and not be inclined to take the same kinds of drastic measures proposed for SS on Defense (or some other program).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Well you deleted the part of the sentence where I said "we should do that." Many of us were opposed to Bush's "cut taxes and increase spending" plan from the beginning, and supported the consensus from the late 1990s that we should have surpluses going into the baby boomers' retirement in order to deal with the shortfall that will probably occur.

My point is that I believe it's disingenuous to go on about how SS is dead and bankrupt, when it's actually in surplus, and not be inclined to take the same kinds of drastic measures proposed for SS on Defense (or some other program).

I agree with you, I was just suggesting that there might be a reason why it would be a worse idea to run Social Security the way we run the DoD.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So, what you are saying is that since the *********s we have in office can't spend money properly anyway, they might as well let the SS system go as is even if it puts us into further debt.

No, because many of us have always been in favor of keeping taxes and spending in line. There actually even used to be a consensus in our country to do so. Remember those days?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

I agree with you, I was just suggesting that there might be a reason why it would be a worse idea to run Social Security the way we run the DoD.

I guess I didn't understand what you were saying. Debt causes inflation, and therefore effectively reduces SS payments? I don't know, if you say so. Economics is gobbeldy-gook to me

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I guess I didn't understand what you were saying. Debt causes inflation, and therefore effectively reduces SS payments? I don't know, if you say so. Economics is gobbeldy-gook to me

Me too for the most part. But I'm pretty sure that cutting checks backed only by debt is definitely something that will lead to inflation. It increases the amount of currency in circulation without actually adding anything of value. Therefore the currency is devalued, and prices rice to compensate.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by medicineman

I'm sorry, but you think I should not be entitled to monies I've been forced to pay for the last 40 years? How do you determine whether or not I 'need' it?

Well, you wouldn't be entitled to the monies you paid in. You'd be entitled to the monies your children paid in.

And I'm sure we could come up with some arbitrary rule to determine "need." Howsabout we hire a panel of homeless people from LA, Chicago, and NYC to evaluate your finances and living conditions and decide whether or not you need it?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by BRussell

midwinter! I didn't know you had 1000+ posts here.

Indeed I do. I tend to avoid the lounge, though. Only enough time for one in my life. And right now, no time for it.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by medicineman

I'm sorry, but you think I should not be entitled to monies I've been forced to pay for the last 40 years? How do you determine whether or not I 'need' it?

Social security is a social insurance program. Do you get to collect from your other insurance policies without a legitimate claim? It's not like anybody can live high and mighty off of SS benefits... they basically keep the elderly in food and shelter.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

No, because many of us have always been in favor of keeping taxes and spending in line. There actually even used to be a consensus in our country to do so. Remember those days?

Yeah I do. They elected the right into office in 1994 and they GOT a balanced budget.

But I'm sure that since the budget seems to be SOOOOO important to you that YOU were one of the republican supporters then right?

This same argument from you does get old. Under the Democratic congressional rule we had a deficit for nearly THIRTY years but we have a devastating attack during a recession which hurts our economy and the right is evil. I do agree with you, they are spending like crazy and I hate it, but if it were Gore in office and the SAME thing were happening you would find a way to justify it. Bitch all you want, but lets not pretend that this is a republican thing. It's a PARTY thing.

The problem is having the same party in the congress and the white house at the same time. When ever that happens we have trouble. It hurt us under carter, hurt the budget under Reagan, under Clinton they nearly hijacked 1/7th of our economy with that ridiculous Hilary-care fiasco, and under Bush we got huge spending again.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by itai195

Social security is a social insurance program. Do you get to collect from your other insurance policies without a legitimate claim?

I agree that SS should let one opt out of receiving payments as long as "opt" is the operative word. I'm not in favor of forced wealth redistribution.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

The problem is having the same party in the congress and the white house at the same time. When ever that happens we have trouble. It hurt us under carter, hurt the budget under Reagan, under Clinton they nearly hijacked 1/7th of our economy with that ridiculous Hilary-care fiasco, and under Bush we got huge spending again.

I agree, fiduciary responsibility seems to go out the window when you don't need to compromise.

[spindler]

SOCIAL SECURITY IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!!!!!

Wanna know why? Americans have a NEGATIVE savings rate. Part of the ability to splurge on credit for big TV screens comes from the idea that you can start saving for retirement when you are 40 or 50. If you had nothing to depend on and no one to bail you out, you would not be using credit cards. You'd actually HAVE TO save your money or be faced with sleeping on a park bench.

If Americans had that to look forward to, you can bet that part of our consumer society would be shut down.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I agree that SS should let one opt out of receiving payments as long as "opt" is the operative word. I'm not in favor of forced wealth redistribution.

I'm not sure we'll ever avoid some degree of wealth redistribution in SS, generational redistribution is exactly what the program does. I don't see what would be so bad about an explicit means test, after all the taxation of social security benefits introduced in the 80s is already an implicit means test of sorts.

That said, I also would favor pushing back the retirement age since people are living and working much longer these days.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Well, you wouldn't be entitled to the monies you paid in. You'd be entitled to the monies your children paid in.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

And I'm sure we could come up with some arbitrary rule to determine "need." Howsabout we hire a panel of homeless people from LA, Chicago, and NYC to evaluate your finances and living conditions and decide whether or not you need it?

Ah, distribution of wealth. Let someone who didn't earn it determine what I should have. That is a wonderful incentive to earn more.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by itai195

Social security is a social insurance program. Do you get to collect from your other insurance policies without a legitimate claim? It's not like anybody can live high and mighty off of SS benefits... they basically keep the elderly in food and shelter.

First of all, insurance programs are voluntary, not mandatory. Second of all, they are risk/premium adjustable. Social Security is neither of these. And whether it's $50 or $50,000, it is my money, after all, not yours or anyone you would like to give it to.

My standard of living is defined by the word MY, not yours or any other panel you would like to enjoin.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by medicineman

Ah, distribution of wealth. Let someone who didn't earn it determine what I should have. That is a wonderful incentive to earn more.

Yeah. How dare all those congressmen and IRS lawyers determine how much money you should have! They didn't earn your money! And those municipal governments! They didn't earn your money either. Look at the way all this damnable redistribution of wealth since the early 20th century has destroyed out economy. It's horrible. Just horrible.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by medicineman

My standard of living is defined by the word MY, not yours or any other panel you would like to enjoin.

Your standard of living owes a lot to the society and government that enabled it.