[Timo]

You can opt out -- you can emigrate.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by midwinter

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.

I think I'm following you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That's been tried and failed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Timo

You can opt out -- you can emigrate.

That's like saying you can opt out of jail by killing yourself.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's like saying you can opt out of jail by killing yourself.

Or that you can opt out of the war on terror by moving?

[NYCFarmboy]

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.

there is no justification, it is theft from the present generation to pay for the previous generations retirement. the system will be bankrupt beyond repair before you ever have any hope of collecting a dime.... ss is a pyramid scheme that worked as long as there were more people paying in than collecting, but the simple mathmatics preclude it from being anything approaching what it is promised to be.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by itai195

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

A cute phrase without much meaning. My standard of living depends on how successfully I address the needs of the marketplace. Society did not 'enable', or help, start or run my business. My business will rise or fail depending on the abilities of my employees and me, and how well we provide the goods and services the marketplace demands.

Determining what the government's role in business is, is a rather broad topic, and off thread here.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's like saying you can opt out of jail by killing yourself.

paying social security does not equal jail
emigrating does not equal killing yourself

not in any sane idea of scale or proportion

so I would say, that's not like saying...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Timo

paying social security does not equal jail
emigrating does not equal killing yourself

not in any sane idea of scale or proportion

so I would say, that's not like saying...

It's a completely unsatisfactory solution that basically amounts to running away from the problem.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by medicineman

Society did not 'enable', or help, start or run my business.

I agree with you that a broader discussion is getting off topic, but this is generally far from true IMO. Where would you get the infrastructure and resources to run and maintain your business if your society did not provide them? Who regulates these as well as the marketplace your business needs?

We all pay into government programs that benefit society as a whole; programs that would fail if individuals could opt out. SS is one of these, so is the national defense.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

there is no justification,

Sure there is. The question here is are there justifications you agree with.

it is theft from the present generation to pay for the previous generations retirement.

Ah, theft. Dramatic language, but sloppy. We generally draw a distinction between state monopolies of power, like taxes and eminent domain, and coercion by private individuals.

But of course libertarians never make this distinction, because they do not view any government concentrations of power as legitimate.

the system will be bankrupt beyond repair before you ever have any hope of collecting a dime....

You're either using a crystal ball or the government's own estimates -- either way, I don't have a lot of faith in either ability to predict the future.

ss is a pyramid scheme that worked as long as there were more people paying in than collecting, but the simple mathmatics preclude it from being anything approaching what it is promised to be.

The final rhetroic flurish here is the appeal to straight mathematics. People who appeal, in their arguments, to mathematics or something that is "natural" are typically trying to put their argument beyond response or counter argument. E.g., who can argue against physics? BUT: NYCFarmboy saying it's simple mathematics don't make it so. And since few things are "simple mathematics", "natural", "God's chosen way" (whatever) you may of course suspect tomfoolery behind someone who makes such a grand appeal.

***

I hear a lot about how people don't owe the system anything. But I ask -- in a democracy, or citizenship in any country, we are not just free to do as we please. Rather, we have responsibilities to our country, to our state. It is, in my opinion and others, one of the duties of freedom. That's why I suggest if you don't want to participate in this responsibility, perhaps you'd be happier participating in some other political system via emigration. Or, of course, by agitating in this country for your viewpoint...

...which seems to be "all to me and I'm not doing anything that I cannot see directly benefing me. Screw everyone else, this world and this land is all about me." Good luck with your prolonged adolescence.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It's a completely unsatisfactory solution that basically amounts to running away from the problem.

I dunno. In my solution, I'm living -- maybe happier. In your solution, I'm dead -- no guess as to happiness level, but not like happiness in this world, I'd warrant. I again say these are not equal.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Timo

I dunno. In my solution, I'm living -- maybe happier. In your solution, I'm dead -- no guess as to happiness level, but not like happiness in this world, I'd warrant. I again say these are not equal.

Forget the freakin' simile. You clearly didn't get it. I have moved on. You should too.

The point is, "If you think there is something your government could do better, leave the country" is a completely awful solution to a problem. It's not a solution at all.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by medicineman

A cute phrase without much meaning. My standard of living depends on how successfully I address the needs of the marketplace. Society did not 'enable', or help, start or run my business. My business will rise or fail depending on the abilities of my employees and me, and how well we provide the goods and services the marketplace demands.

Nope. Your standard of living depends on much more than that. It depends on the government to protect our borders. It depends on the legislature in your district and Congress to provide for the rule of law, and for the judiciary to enforce the rule of law. It depends on the enforcement of a judiciary's judgment. In your case, you ought to be very interested in the right of property and the soundess of our currency. If you have neither confidence in your right to property nor confidence in currency, you've got no marketplace.

Furthermore, your business will not rise and fall depending on your ability (you sound like a economic John Calvin, BTW). It will depend on your abilities coupled with your specific position in the marketplace, versus the position of other competitors and the general overall structure of the field of your business. For example, if the field of your product is such that you're the only game in town, like some characterize Microsoft in corporate IT environments, your success will be more a product of your position in the field rather than your inate ability with what you do.

And it is the State that guarantees that this field even exists, not some fictional invisible hand market. Unless you think bartering for food is a better economic system.

[itai195]

^^ What he said. Try running your business in Afghanistan.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Forget the freakin' simile. You clearly didn't get it. I have moved on. You should too.

I get that you don't like being called on your false and overblown similies, which in turn are evidence of sloppy, inprecise thinking. Maybe instead of moving on, you should work on it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Timo

I get that you don't like being called on your false and overblown similies, which in turn are evidence of sloppy, inprecise thinking. Maybe instead of moving on, you should work on it.

Which do you think is more of an indicator of sloppy thinking:

1) Making a simile that somebody doesn't understand

2) After a person goes on to explain his thoughts more fully, ignoring the actual substance of what he's saying and continuing to harp on about the simile you didn't understand

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The point is, "If you think there is something your government could do better, leave the country" is a completely awful solution to a problem. It's not a solution at all.

I did not suggest he leave the country because the government cannot do something better. I suggested if he really doesn't want to pay this tax, then the easiest way to not pay it is to leave. He has to decide if on balance that is a good solution or not, but it certainly solves his "problem." Indeed, when your viewpoint is all about yourself perhaps this is the fastest solution to the "problem."

Of course, as I wrote elsewhere, he is free to agitate for legislation removing the burden of social security, or even running for office to make it happen. It's another option.

Or, perhaps OP is merely complaining, rather than doing something about it. In which case, cry me a river.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Which do you think is more of an indicator of sloppy thinking:

1) Making a simile that somebody doesn't understand

2) After a person goes on to explain his thoughts more fully, ignoring the actual substance of what he's saying and continuing to harp on about the simile you didn't understand

I don't understand your post, so I guess you have your answer. Who's the person? Are you the person? And who is the somebody that didn't understand? Are they the same as the person? Is there a reason you're being opaque? Can you tell me what the "substance" is that was missed?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Timo

I did not suggest he leave the country because the government cannot do something better. I suggested if he really doesn't want to pay this tax, then the easiest way to not pay it is to leave.

Yes, which is a completely overblown solution to the problem. He is suggesting something that the government should do to improve (not force people to pay into a giant pyramid scheme). Your response is that if he thinks the government should change for the better, he should leave the country.

[Timo]

If that's the logic that carries the day in your sandbox, perhaps you shouldn't leave it too often.

I responded to OP as I did because he doesn't want to burden his responsibility. In fact, my idea is in line with those who do not want the responsibilities of citizenship.

OP is not interested in how to fix the system. To quote:

Originally Posted by macintologist

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.

[Chuckit]

Forced participation in a pyramid scheme is not a necessary responsibility of citizenship.

And no, your "If you have a problem, run away from it" logic does not carry the day in my sandbox.

[vmarks]

SocSec is not sacred or perfect. It did not descend from the mountaintops writ large on tablets by Roosevelt.

It is no crime to reform or undo it if it is no longer working.

There is nothing wrong with considering that rather than generational wealth transfer (or theft) perhaps the money collected should be deposited in a personal account unavailable to the government to dip its fingers into, and the money the beneficiary is entitled to is his own, collected over time.

There is further nothing wrong with suggesting that such a plan be opt-in, and traditional SocSec opt-out.

The notion that SocSec will Always Be Done This Way, therefore anyone who considers change would be happier elsewhere seems incorrect to me. SocSec is not permanently fixed in its current state, and nothing suggests that a person who dislikes its current state would be happier elsewhere.

[BRussell]

Pyramid scheme.

[Timo]

As OP said, this thread is about being forced to participate. As I said, just because you or NYCFarmboy characterize it as a pyramid scheme don't make it so.

Perhaps you'd like to share what you do think your responsibility is to our elder generations?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by vmarks

There is further nothing wrong with suggesting that such a plan be opt-in, and traditional SocSec opt-out.

Well this will make me unpopular, but I think some saving has to be forced. But generally I agree SS as it's structured is not sacred and can be reformed in many ways. My primary issue with the 'Bush plan' was how much it would cost to get from the current system to the one he envisions.

[Jawbone54]

I hate Social Security with every fiber of my being.

And by the way...
FairTax...
FairTax...
FairTax!!!

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by Timo

Nope. Your standard of living depends on much more than that. It depends on the government to protect our borders. It depends on the legislature in your district and Congress to provide for the rule of law, and for the judiciary to enforce the rule of law. It depends on the enforcement of a judiciary's judgment. In your case, you ought to be very interested in the right of property and the soundess of our currency. If you have neither confidence in your right to property nor confidence in currency, you've got no marketplace.

Furthermore, your business will not rise and fall depending on your ability (you sound like a economic John Calvin, BTW). It will depend on your abilities coupled with your specific position in the marketplace, versus the position of other competitors and the general overall structure of the field of your business. For example, if the field of your product is such that you're the only game in town, like some characterize Microsoft in corporate IT environments, your success will be more a product of your position in the field rather than your inate ability with what you do.

And it is the State that guarantees that this field even exists, not some fictional invisible hand market. Unless you think bartering for food is a better economic system.

I believe we are arguing two different things. I am arguing about business in the marketplace, and you, the role of government as a government. That the government provides a stable environment in all it's processes would have to be a given in a capitalist society.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Pyramid scheme.

Excuse me. You're right. On second thought, I meant a Ponzi scheme, not a pyramid scheme.

The point is, you're paying money now on the assumption that somebody else is going to pay money to you later.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Timo

As OP said, this thread is about being forced to participate. As I said, just because you or NYCFarmboy characterize it as a pyramid scheme don't make it so.

Perhaps you'd like to share what you do think your responsibility is to our elder generations?

If you really gave a crap about your elders you would support them in their old age just as they did you when you were a child.

Nah, that's silly. Let the taxpayers support them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

SocSec is not sacred or perfect. It did not descend from the mountaintops writ large on tablets by Roosevelt.

It is no crime to reform or undo it if it is no longer working.

There is nothing wrong with considering that rather than generational wealth transfer (or theft) perhaps the money collected should be deposited in a personal account unavailable to the government to dip its fingers into, and the money the beneficiary is entitled to is his own, collected over time.

There is further nothing wrong with suggesting that such a plan be opt-in, and traditional SocSec opt-out.

The notion that SocSec will Always Be Done This Way, therefore anyone who considers change would be happier elsewhere seems incorrect to me. SocSec is not permanently fixed in its current state, and nothing suggests that a person who dislikes its current state would be happier elsewhere.

SS is not sacred, but a reform plan like Bush's - which its proponents claim will save money but in fact costs more - is certainly not sacred either. People opposed to Bush's plan, like me, never claimed that SS is "sacred;" that's a straw man. It was just a terrible reform plan. There are many reforms that those of us who thought Bush's plan was terrible could support.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The point is, you're paying money now on the assumption that somebody else is going to pay money to you later.

Last I checked people are still having babies, and the Rapture hasn't come yet so we still have to work for a living. If you really want to look at this way, all retirement plans are ponzi schemes. You're investing in mutual funds or stocks on the assumption that other people will keep driving up corporate earnings and/or PE multiples. Your pension (if you still have one) is dependent on other workers replacing your labor and keeping the company healthy throughout your retirement.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by itai195

Last I checked people are still having babies, and the Rapture hasn't come yet so we still have to work for a living.

We're still having babies, but fewer of them, and old people are living much longer. Social Security is enormously susceptible to demographic changes.

Anyway, I was just offering that as one example of why somebody might want to opt out. It's kind of a tangent.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by medicineman

I believe we are arguing two different things. I am arguing about business in the marketplace, and you, the role of government as a government. That the government provides a stable environment in all it's processes would have to be a given in a capitalist society.

Perhaps. But I believe there is more to the government providing a stable playing field than dismissing its subtlies as "given." There's a lot of disagreement on what is required to provide the stable field.

[Dakar]

Out of curiosity, what do other countries do for their old retired people?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell

SS is not sacred, but a reform plan like Bush's - which its proponents claim will save money but in fact costs more - is certainly not sacred either. People opposed to Bush's plan, like me, never claimed that SS is "sacred;" that's a straw man. It was just a terrible reform plan. There are many reforms that those of us who thought Bush's plan was terrible could support.

So tell me what the lefts reform ideas are. I don't think I even know what they want to do.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

We're still having babies, but fewer of them, and old people are living much longer. Social Security is enormously susceptible to demographic changes.

I agree... Other than AARP, I find generally little resistance to the idea that SS should be reformed to address the points you bring up.

[Timo]

Originally Posted by smacintush

If you really gave a crap about your elders you would support them in their old age just as they did you when you were a child.

Nah, that's silly. Let the taxpayers support them.

I personally think a rich country like the United States can afford social security, and I believe that providing some kind of net to help prevent destitution is not only morally correct, but preventative vis-a-vis our health care system.

You think you should not pay because you don't want to.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Timo

I personally think a rich country like the United States can afford social security, and I believe that providing some kind of net to help prevent destitution is not only morally correct, but preventative vis-a-vis our health care system.

You think you should not pay because you don't want to.

No, I think that destitution is the fault and responsibility of both the old people and their families, NOT the taxpayers.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by BRussell

SS is not sacred, but a reform plan like Bush's - which its proponents claim will save money but in fact costs more - is certainly not sacred either. People opposed to Bush's plan, like me, never claimed that SS is "sacred;" that's a straw man. It was just a terrible reform plan. There are many reforms that those of us who thought Bush's plan was terrible could support.

Hillary Clinton believes that SS is "sacred." She spoke on it, saying:

"We're seeing the slow and steady erosion of what made America great in the twentieth century," Clinton told her audience in an even tone. "When I got to the Senate I asked myself, What's going on here? At first I thought the President just wanted to undo everything my husband had done." Clinton waited a beat, then added, "And I did take that personally."

The audience laughed. "But then I thought, Wait a minute. It's not just about turning the clock back on the 1990s.... They want to turn the clock back on most of the twentieth century. They want to turn the clock all the way back beyond Franklin Roosevelt. Back beyond Teddy Roosevelt. That's why they're trying to undo Social Security. Make no mistake about it."

Nevermind that Roosevelt provided for non-contributory monies when he instituted the plan, compulsory contributory monies to fund the plan, and voluntarily contributed annuities to increase the annual amount paid back as pension in old age.

We seem to have lost sight of the voluntary aspect, and the fact that any plan rooted in voluntary participation will be better received than the compulsory one. Even a compulsion to choose between two options, traditional SocSec and personal retirement savings accounts, is better than defending the existing plan as the only valid option, or as Clinton calls it, part of "everything that made America great in the Twentieth Century."

[itai195]

Originally Posted by vmarks

We seem to have lost sight of the voluntary aspect, and the fact that any plan rooted in voluntary participation will be better received than the compulsory one.

I don't think so, after all we have this 401(k)/IRA boom going on. Interestingly, voluntary participation and personal investment management don't always yield satisfying results.

[Ron Goodman]

If we were really interested in "fixing" SS, we would start by removing the income cap on the taxes paid in.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

If we were really interested in "fixing" SS, we would start by removing the income cap on the taxes paid in.

As long as taxes are cut elsewhere to offset the HUGE tax increase that this would amount to, sure.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Ron Goodman

If we were really interested in "fixing" SS, we would start by removing the income cap on the taxes paid in.

But if that were done we'd have to remove the cap on income paid out as well.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by Timo

Perhaps. But I believe there is more to the government providing a stable playing field than dismissing its subtlies as "given." There's a lot of disagreement on what is required to provide the stable field.

If you'd like to talk about the enumerated powers of the federal government we can do that. But this topic was about the Social Security system. I began my two cents by saying that you are paying 12.4% of your employment cost into a forced system, for an average employee making less that $95,000/year.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush

So tell me what the lefts reform ideas are. I don't think I even know what they want to do.

Bush in his state of the union address last year listed several reform plans proposed by Democrats:

Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated.

Clinton wanted to take the amount that is currently in surplus and put it into conservative investments vehicles. Unfortunately we're now spending that surplus rather than doing what Clinton wanted. All the liberal think tanks like Brookings have proposed their own plans. Just about every Democrat has some plan.

One that was popular was creating private accounts - just like Bush wanted - but instead of taking the money out of current social security funds like Bush wanted, to let employers and individuals add to it themselves. One plan was to require employers to set up all employees' accounts, even if they didn't contribute to them. Another one was to take the child tax credit and create a savings account for the child rather than giving the money to the parents. Start every kid off with 1000 at birth. Liberals have frequently recommended simply consolidating and simplifying retirement tax law.

There are plenty of plans out there. For this Congress though, it's Bush or nothing, and there was never any chance that any other plan would be considered.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by medicineman

I think I'm following you. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That's been tried and failed.

And so did a political system whose central tenet was "MINE! BUGGER OFF!"

Laissez-faire doesn't work and without some kind of mandatory redistribution of wealth, it will become increasingly consolidated. Even Andrew Carnegie knew that.

[medicineman]

Originally Posted by midwinter

And so did a political system whose central tenet was "MINE! BUGGER OFF!"

Laissez-faire doesn't work and without some kind of mandatory redistribution of wealth, it will become increasingly consolidated. Even Andrew Carnegie knew that.

Andrew Carnegie became rich and famous with a fortuitous oil investment, and as a steel baron. His 'secret' of success was to work hard and be somewhat lucky. I won't characterize how the super-rich pontificate. He wasn't thought of too highly in Johnstown, Pa. But that's neither here nor there.

It's never been my policy to look into someone else's pockets. I don't envy. I'm happy if someone does well. All I ask is for is my opportunity. I certainly don't want to 'make it' on someone else's back.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by vmarks

SocSec is not sacred or perfect. It did not descend from the mountaintops writ large on tablets by Roosevelt.

It is no crime to reform or undo it if it is no longer working.

There is nothing wrong with considering that rather than generational wealth transfer (or theft) perhaps the money collected should be deposited in a personal account unavailable to the government to dip its fingers into, and the money the beneficiary is entitled to is his own, collected over time.

There is further nothing wrong with suggesting that such a plan be opt-in, and traditional SocSec opt-out.

Huh? Wouldn't that just be an IRA?

Social Security is just a tax. From that perspective, there is nothing particularly special about it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

Huh? Wouldn't that just be an IRA?

Social Security is just a tax. From that perspective, there is nothing particularly special about it.

A tax? No, it's a pyramid scheme! It's government theft at gunpoint!

[itai195]

Originally Posted by medicineman

Andrew Carnegie became rich and famous with a fortuitous oil investment, and as a steel baron. His 'secret' of success was to work hard and be somewhat lucky. I won't characterize how the super-rich pontificate. He wasn't thought of too highly in Johnstown, Pa. But that's neither here nor there.

Yeah, and he has a few of my favorite quotes, including this one:

Originally Posted by Andrew Carnegie

Surplus wealth is a sacred trust which its possessor is bound to administer in his lifetime for the good of the community.