I really don't like the glibness of that sentiment, even if the idea is fine. As a voter or constituent, yeah, fight for Social Security, try to maintain it.
But as an investor? Recognize that your personal view has approximately no impact on whether Social Security exists unless you run for high office or devote your life to the topic. Make your best guess and save accordingly.
People shouldn't make their individual choices around the political views they support, because most individuals have virtually no influence on national outcomes.
No, of course the answer isn't to "vote really hard", but that phrasing is simply rhetoric built to disparage the poster you're responding to. Everyone has only one vote. But the people who make noise, the people who are politically active, gain power far beyond their single vote. And get enough of them together -- it doesn't necessarily take that many -- and you can orchestrate some real change.
So now our livelihood has resorted to a shouting match? Thanks but no thanks.
Voting is like praying, where if you pray with all your passion then god might listen. But there's also the saying pray for what you want, work for what you need.
Your not wanting to participate in this understandable but if you don't then you have no guarantee of retaining what you have worked for anyway.
People wonder why bitcoin is rising. It's because their competition is total crap. Government issued security is no security at all.
The government strongly encourages belief in the myth that Social Security is something other than a welfare tax with no implied obligation to the taxpayer because that notion makes the tax much more palatable than the reality.
The other one nobody seems to want to talk about or understand is Medicaid. People think they are getting health insurance (or whatever they want to call it) when, in reality, they are accumulating debt with the government and a debt most states are required, by law, to collect.
This is one of the huge problems (outside of costs and lies) I have with Obamacare. The claim is that millions of people now have insurance when, in reality, millions of people were shoved into Medicaid and are accumulating a non-trivial financial obligation with the government. To say this is dishonest is probably cutting it short.
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/estate-recover...
It's true that Medicaid will seek reimbursement for procedures that should not have been covered, but that's not different much different than what happens when a private insurance company refuses to pay a benefit. The hospital is free to pursue the person directly for the balance they owe.
Please read the info in the link I provided. It's from the Medicaid website itself so no bias or fabrication at all.
Medicaid is not health insurance. It provides access to health services but the patient is on the hook for the cost of those services. In certain states things are a bit different. With some 64 million people enrolled in Medicaid it is probably safe to say that tens of millions of people are accumulating debt with the government.
My point of contention is that almost nobody knows this because it is swept under the rug for the political gains afforded by saying that millions more have "health insurance" when, in fact, they don't.
It also really bothers me that a good number of those in the program are poor and probably not very educated and don't realize they are signing over their estate to the government.
This really bugs me. We need to provide health services to those who cannot afford the cost and we need to do so without making an underhanded grab for what little they may possess.
This, to me, is nothing less than fraud. A private enterprise would be destroyed by lawsuits and people would end-up in jail if they had such provisions in their contracts and they were not fully disclosed ad-nauseum as a condition for entering into that contract.
Not sure why we accept this from government other than, per my findings, almost nobody knows how Medicaid actually works.
There is no asset test, and there is no paying back benefits if you are under 65 when you took them.
Medicaid expansion is quite literally the best insurance that money can't buy.
In CA, for example, a family of 4 earning less than $33,500 gets MediCal [1]. If you just want free coverage for the kids, you can earn $64,600. [2]
[1] - http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/Pages/DoYouQualifyF...
[2] - http://hbex.coveredca.com/toolkit/renewal-toolkit/downloads/...
A progressive tax system should not be paired with a regressive subsidy as massive as ACA. It adds up to nearly a 100% tax on the first $60,000 of income for unhealthy / chronically ill families, and a 60% effective tax rate for healthy ones.
It's also worth noting that, in most of the US, the alternative to medicaid was/is filial support laws, in which the nursing home could take the assets of the children of the patients in their care.
This is very, very far removed from the idea of health insurance. Your property becomes the property of the government. With real health insurance nobody places a lien on your home for medical services rendered.
SS is not quite a pension fund, but it is also certainly _not_ a "tax on income like any other". The funds taken all go to directly to the SSA fund, they aren't available for general use like basic income tax is. For another difference, it is payroll tax, so if you don't have income from wages (e.g., all income is through interest and dividends) there is no SS tax at all.
Importantly, although it's possible that the fund could become exhausted if payments aren't reduced (as baby boomers age and the elderly grow to far outnumber the young), the size of payments would be reduced far before that point. Also, since there will always be at least some young people paying into SS, even if the fund itself was basically exhausted there would still be a continuous stream of incoming payments to distribute out to the elderly, just much reduced from the current size of outgoing payments.
If I wanted government to plan my life I would have lived in Cuba not in USA.
Except the facts don't match up with this.
It is not designed to be like a pension. It is the workers of today paying for the retirees of today, on the assumption that when you retire there will be workers to pay for you. There is no guarantee, and there is no fallback. The money is spent just as soon as it's taken from you.
It is an entitlement because I'm paying for my parents and my peers' parents. If it's around when I retire, I will be spending other people's hard-earned money, not my own. I mean the Wikipedia "definition" of entitle is "a government program guaranteeing access to some benefit by members of a specific group" which is exactly what SS is.
Isn't that how pensions have traditionally worked too?
Defined benefit pensions are usually used for government roles and some large unions, where the unions can get large increases in total employee benefits without having the true cost show up on the organization's books. The union and employer generally agree to use unrealistic numbers for returns on investment (>=8%/yr).
That's not how social security works. Every dollar you pay in flies out to fund promises made in years past. "Your" social security money needs to be earned by our children.
And what a surprise - rates today are much lower, yet tax evasion continues to be a problem.
And what cash will they give to the SSA in exchange for those bonds? Where will that come from?
The same place cash comes from now when the Fed buys t-bonds in order to manipulate the interest rate: nowhere. The Federal Reserve has the authority to create money to redeem any US government security.
The federal reserve can create new US dollars, and it can buy US Treasuries - but this is not the same as redeeming them. The fed becomes just another bondholder that needs paying by the treasury dept. The money goes to the person who previously held the bond as payment for the bond.
Also there is about $20 trillion outstanding public debt, and only $3.3 trillion in the whole money supply, so there is a big gap in money creation needed to pay off the debt. Would tank the currency and kill the economy (think hyperinflation).
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m...
The Fed does not get paid. It doesn't need to get paid, since the Federal Reserve by law has infinite liquidity.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-all-the-bonds-that-the...
We're all aware. Whether the money is taken from the next generation or from the federal reserve is irrelevant. The point is that it's not yours until the government takes it from them and gives it to you.
Yes, but that is $25B out of total receipts of $884B[0]. For every $1.00 paid in over $.97 was paid back out to beneficiaries. In 2015 it was $.975 and 2016 will probably be higher still.
According to this page[1] the trust fund will be depleted by 2035. I know that is a projection and things can change, but to say there is no room for concern borders on hubris.
[0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html [1] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
Which, as you can see from comments upthread, is -- even though I personally don't think it's true -- one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat ("it's your money", "you paid into it and you should get your money out", etc.). Positioning it in this way makes voters feel like they have a personal investment in the system that they need to protect, which is clever because people generally hate having something taken away, much more than they dislike not receiving something (even if the amounts are the same).
When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general. And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies who have a significant vested interest in making sure it goes away. I would not expect it to last long under those conditions.
So bloody what? I've got no problem taking from the rich to fund a basic income to keep the elderly off cat-food. I've got parents and a grandmother left who need Social Security.
>When it becomes a straightforward tax, then it'll be attacked like every other tax during the periodic political pendulum-swings in favor of lower taxes and fewer government programs in general.
It already is attacked during regular political pendulum swings. Both Clinton and Bush 2 tried to privatize Social Security.
That shows a grave misunderstanding of both proposed solutions to the SA insolvency problem.
It would have been called mandatory social savings if that was its intended purpose. It's not. It never was. It's social security.
>one of the arguments that people regularly make in favor of SS when they feel it's under threat: "it's your money"
This is actually one of the arguments used to try and justify privatizing it and handing over the money to Wall Street to invest instead (Bush tried to do exactly this and Obama made noises about it).
>And by removing the contribution cap, it'll suddenly have a lot of very wealthy enemies
It ALREADY has a lot of very wealthy enemies who are trying to privatize it. One of the most prominent is Stan Druckenmiller, who is fairly open about inciting intergenerational warfare - telling "millenials" that "boomers" are the cause of their problems and that the "fix" is privatizing social security and austerity:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/who-should-young-peop...
You're describing a distinction without a difference, as other parts of the USG have already spent the surplus.
The US government will be in debt for the rest of its existence and the balance of that debt will likely increase every year. The Federal Reserve openly targets a 3% inflation rate and that inflation is going to come from ye olde printing press.
IMHO, better this inflation come in the form of SS payments than payouts to military contractors.
I'm coming from the perspective that there is neither a short term nor long term plan to address the inevitable default of the US government, decades hence. We WILL either default, monetize, or sell federal land. Math won't stop working in my lifetime.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/the-7-biggest-myths-a...
Social security's 2030 "insolvency" was a political decision not an economic inevitability.
Gun violence is trending down and rather low historically. So I guess SS really is doomed.
I think it is more likely that the attempt to try and cover Social Security shortfalls by importing labor will backfire, and that the new citizens will vote against paying more to cover retirement expenses for Boomers and Gen-X.
Because they'd like a similar system to take care of them in their old age, same as if they'd been born here? Why are you adding race into it as if the economic factor weren't the primary driver? If participants in the system have access to the benefits, in the future, why should they care about ethnic disparities between the current workforce and the cohort of retired people?
Your argument is that people of differing ethnic identity cam't have or perceive common or mutual economic interests.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/car...
This is terrible legalistic reasoning. It essentially says the government cannot create a Ponzi scheme because Ponzi schemes are by definition illegal and governments define what is legal.
Better reasoning would incorporate the government's indirect control of inflation, direct control of federal wages and ability to "restructure" social security benefits and taxes, as well as the fact that the economy grows in real terms. This reasoning is more complex, but it is behind why investing in a start-up that plans to go public isn't a Ponzi scheme.
-There are no promises of huge returns
-The inner workings of the program are public knowledge
-There is no fundamental demographic or mathematical reason the system (a pretty straight-ahead social insurance program involving a certain amount of wealth transfer) should ever become insolvent, assuming the political will exists to keep it running.
Which is exactly what is happening now with the lopsided ratio of retirees and new incoming workers.
They seem to have marked the assertion as "False" based off of really semantic technicalities
Read up on it, it's a lot more interesting than the "it's going broke!!" stuff makes it out to be.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/25/millennials-...
That future probably wasn't terribly obvious to the politicians who created them (given that most public pension plans were created roughly between World War I and a bit after World War II).
In fact, based on some of the literature of the time (eg The Population Bomb -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb -- etc.) I'd say it's more like people were fearing the reverse.
Seriously, just google "is social security a pyramid scheme".
You'll find a LOT of breathless articles from personal blogs and sites like World Net Daily calling it a pyramid scheme.
You'll also find a lot of, for lack of a better way to put it, content of actual substance that describes how it's not a pyramid scheme, but a sustainable government program that's worked out just fine for decades (with regular adjustments, as all human endeavors need).
A ponzi scheme is quite different. You pretend to invest an initial investor's money. The returns to that investor are paid out of money coming in from later investors.
Social security works in this way. The money paid into social security is not invested at all. The returns from social security (money going out to current retirees) come entirely from new investments (money going in from current workers). This is the basic definition of a ponzi scheme. It is a sustainable ponzi scheme so long as taxes collected from current workers exceed benefits paid out to current retirees. The designers of this system did not count on two things: (a) ever increasing life expectancy and (b) the baby boom. The former has increased the length of time each person collects benefits and the latter has resulted in a demographic bulge that is now hitting its retirement years.
Thank you Mr. Bismarck![0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Old_Age_and_...
I understand the comparison to Ponzi schemes, but I consider these comparisons rather hyperbolic. The intent of a pay-as-you-go pension never is fraud. There are some definite problems with pay-as-you-go systems, especially now due to the fertility decline in the West, but the issues do not stem from pure malice.
A ponzi scheme has an intent to defraud. That's why they're illegal.
Social security has no intent to defraud. It's not "legal cause the gubmint says so," it's legal because it's not a fraudulent money-making scheme designed to enrich the leader.
Social Security and other pay-as-you-go schemes aim to reduce poverty, especially elderly poverty. By this measure, it has succeeded quite well (http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html), and the probable reason pay as you go was chosen I imagine was to provide immediate benefit (recall this scheme was launched during the Great Depression). I would consider it radical (and would want one to provide considerable justification) if one wanted to ditch Social Security entirely.
A better debate in my mind, of course, would be whether to phase Social Security into a fully funded model versus pay-as-you-go model. I can buy that kind of argument, a fully funded retirement scheme is more secure than a PAYGO type.
But even as it stands, the current Social Security gap doesn't sound like a complete disaster. Part of it actually is because Social Security is not completely pay as you go -- Congress raised payroll taxes in 1983 in part to cover this gap (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-abou...). Part of it is because we have some variables to play with -- raising the retirement age or raising the payroll tax cap, for instance. Medicare actually sounds like its in worse shape at this moment.
That's quite dismissive of his statement, and uncalled for. It's a pragmatic statement: politics aside, don't budget your retirement funds as if you'll still get the benefits promised to you as of today. Cram money in that 401K as if you won't be getting a dime of your money back from your SS contributions.
What you want to talk about is a different, and mostly unrelated, to what parent is talking about. Doesn't make it unimportant, just not relevant.
This is the best attitude I have seen in the whole thread. Social Security is an authoritarian play, or a power play.
Another way to look at it: if every single US tax payer had to manually pay their taxes, instead of them being auto-drawn from their respective W2 employer, you'd see more people asking the question "who's money is this really?"
This is why the fair tax or similar plans will never pass. The power to silently tax people is too good for big brother.
A more charitable view would be that social security is an attempt to provide a minimum standard of living for all seniors and the disabled. How do you propose that society cares for these people, particularly the disabled, if it's not done at a societal level?
Retirement also benefits the young/middle aged by ensuring jobs open up.
It should not be the governments job to manage retirement funds. That's why I said it's a power play, because if you made social security an open market with competition, you would probably see more positive support and results.
Please, don't tell me about my duties as a son, I've supported two family members through cancer, simultaneously. If/when it comes to it, he will be taken care of by me & siblings. How about the millions? who don't have children able to care for them? The streets is it? More welfare? I'd love to hear about a more sustainable option that doesn't include 'probably'.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't sustainable [1], but that's what social security is. Social security is not a guaranteed solution. If we have to raise taxes or collect additional taxes, that makes it a ponzi scheme. Cutting benefits is similar: you either lose the money now or later.
Discussion forums such as this are one of our few hopes for generating s sustainable solution. Just because a solution doesn't currently exist doesn't mean we should be complacent with how things are.
[1]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/pf/social-security-medicare/
This is kicking the can down the road.
The population of any closed system, whether country, continent, or even planet, cannot grow indefinitely. And any system that expects indefinite growth to sustain itself will invariably become exhausted when rate out exceeds rate in for a sufficient duration.
Immigration alone may be a stopgap, but it is by no means a solution.
IANAEconomist.
It should not be the governments job to manage retirement funds.
Sez you. I'd like to outsource that job to them as private financial advisers often seem to put their own interests ahead of their clients', and I really don't know how to evaluate competing investment vehicles except int he most shallow way. I'd really like to delegate that job to someone, and I'd really like to join up with enough other people to feel the same way to delegate it to the same entity and enjoy the resultant economies of scale.
If enough people decide they want government to perform some function on their behalf, and it seems like a majority of people over several generations of western democracy in multiple countries do want the government to run a pension system, then it damn well is the government's job.
If instead there was a list that said, "Here is the amount of money that went to each of the major federal departments", maybe people would say, "really? that's cheap!" or "really? we spend that much on defense???" Who knows, but they'd be better informed.
As I recall to a rough first approximation only about 1/5 of government spending isn't Defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. That's the first thing to keep in mind when talking about deficits, taxation and priorities.
Personally every time I look at my pay statement the taxes sting badly. However, I think the more interesting discussion to have is, "what are we spending money on?"
As a self-employed libertarian I think the same thing :O
I think most of the services that are offered through the government are noble or necessary..I disagree that it should be the government that runs many of them.
Yes...we could call it a 'budget.'
If the majority of the workforce works as independent contractors, the government will not be able to use employers to collect ("withhold") taxes automatically from workers' paychecks. The IRS will need to wait for the contractors to explicitly pay their own taxes.
I suspect this will have a big impact on cash flow for incoming taxes. Also, it could give more power to the people should they ever choose to execute a tax boycott.
You can even run a self-managed superannuation fund and make all the investment choices yourself if you want but people rarely do better than a standard fund.
My grandmother is sitting in a multi million dollar inner suburb property and claiming a pension. It seems harsh but I think she should be required to get her pension via the Pension Loans Scheme: https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelin...
I think you'd be on higher moral ground if Social Security was on sound footing from an actuarial basis, the US had balanced budgets for the last 30+ years and had invested heavily in the next generation (here or abroad) through education, infrastructure and social capital. Writing an IOU from the general fund to the Social Security "Trust" fund is no more legitimate than "saving" for retirement by funding an IRA with a credit card cash advance.
Money is just an implied promise with future workers. As the last person on planet earth I could have stacks of hundred dollar bills and it won't get me a sandwich.
If you look at US demographics the entire notion of retirement is at risk unless we assume some combination of massive productivity boosts, massive immigration and/or massive, sustained trade deficits or a next generation of workers that is willing to forgo children and embrace minimalism and self sacrifice that would make a monk look like a hedonist.
Otherwise the future will consist of lower standard of living for the vast majority of seniors; working longer; and some combination of lower asset prices and higher long term interest rates.
And like every pyramid scheme, if the bottom becomes too small it will fail spectacularly.
I mean I want the money to be there and will fight tooth and nail to ensure it, but damn if my control over it isn't limited. We still need to look out for ourselves.
Not quite. This is actually split between the employee and the employer. With each contributing 6.2%.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf
Also why are you admonishing the OP? He has every right to pessimistic about this current state of social security.
In practice the mechanism is that every employer figures it in to their offers, such that every offer you ever receive is ~6.2% lower than it would be if SS didn't exist.
Tax cuts go straight into the employer's pocket, as the employer will happily tell you to your face:
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/05/corporations-prepare-to-...
Sure, it's theoretically possible that the employer could pass all tax cuts to its suppliers. McDonald's could call up and offer to pay more for frozen hamburgers and fries. Walmart could tell its Chinese shoe makers that it plans to pay double for all future pairs, just because. But, why would that happen as opposed to rewarding the shareholders?
Every offer is up to 6.2% lower. I have a business with employees but their pay is sufficiently low (compared to the revenue of the business; their pay is above market for the jobs they do) that SS does not enter into our calculations. If the employer portion of SS was eliminated tomorrow we would not give anyone a 6.2% raise, nor would future employees get offers 6.2% greater.
I'm sure somewhere there is an employee whose salary is a big piece of a business's income and they would have gotten a little more money had that tax not been there. But I'm pretty sure that's the exception rather than the rule, if for no other reason than SS taxes are capped so you reach a point where more salary does not equal more SS tax.
Indeed, social security isn't taxed on anything above 118K.
[EDIT] With health care costs being fixed at crazy high amounts (in the US at least.)
The politicians are itching to hand the pot of money over to Wall Street who will extract fees from it.
i'd put my vanguard expense ratios up against the ssa's effective expense ratios any day of the week.
With effort you could have run it through Vanguard but most people are confused by investing and would have ended up being robbed in broad daylight by borderline criminal "asset managers."
I can do zilch. Voting against SS would mean labeling yourself some kind of moron who is not paying his "fair share" senile libertarian.
I think the only practical way is to think of this as some kind of ransom money we are paying to mafia not get into jail at this moment. The SS when I get old would mean nothing.
You need to change that attitude or your complacency will allow politicians to take it from you. The fact is you pay ~16% of your paycheck into social security and medicare, it is designed to be like a pension. It is not an entitlement, it's your money.