How Social Security Rips of the Average American

The Johns Hopkins News-Letter (Johns Hopkins U.) ^ | 1/3/3 | Aaron Back

[ThinkDifferent]

worked well for 70 years!

Yes, Ponzi schemes work well in the beginning. Social Security was an exceptionally brilliant ploy because almost everyone who was alive when it began won't be around when the bill comes due.

The problem with most of the complainers is that their greed is greater than their altruism

I don't think it's particularly altruistic to saddle future generations with trillions in debt because you didn't want to save for your own retirement, but that's just me.

[Principled]

The personal accounts issue is designed to bridge that gap but has the real issue of people mismanaging the money involved.

Do you mean that government would do a better job of managing other people's money than the owner of the money would do???

What an odd thought.

[ThinkDifferent]

As a great leader once said, we could let people keep their own money, but they might not spend it right.

[Gunslingr3]

I suggest you get a grip. While I agree an actual trust fund would have been better, the system is pretty good as a retirement safety net and has worked well for 70 years!

Under the guise of a 'retirement safety net' the government has spent literally Trillions of dollars on largesse. Those generations have decided to plunder not only their fellow man, but future generations.

"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

"We believe--or we act as if we believed--that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

I paid so my parents could eat and my kids will pay so I can eat.

Why don't you feed your parents while I feed mine? Why do you think I work to food on your plate, or anyone else's? Why are you twisting this once free Republic into a socialist nannystate? Is it because you're unwilling to pay to feed your parents, so you want others to be compelled to by the force of a gun? Is it because you're afraid that you're unable to provide for your own life, and so want to usurp the earnings of others under the color of law to supplement your own worth. Is that what liberty means to you? Compelling others to pay your way?

The problem with most of the complainers is that their greed is greater than their altruism. Think about it.

You need to understand I don't belong to you. You have no right to rob me in order to further yourself, your parents, or your children. Why is it greedy when I simply want to keep my money? Why should my future be made worse to make yours better? Who gets to make that decision? There is a disappointing lack of affection for freedom and liberty in these parts.

[kabar]

Per #31 FICA peaks out at $87,000 for 2003. Medicare is uncapped so you pay 1.45%on all earnings. The limit will be raised again for FICA in 2004.

[HighRoadToChina]

"The amount of money you receive when you retire is equivalent to a two percent annual return on your taxes."

If this statement was even close to reality (you don't earn 2% APR on your taxes as #59 explains so clearly), 2% is still 1-2% less than the annual rate of inflation which has been around 3-4% for the past 20-30 years. So that means, your "investment" in SS (which is forced upon the American people by the force of law) is a wopping negative 1-2%.

SS is truly reflective of its initials. The greatest Ponzi scheme in the world.

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

Social Security is the largest Ponzi Scheme ever invented, sponsored and propagated by our very own government. Yet the only people getting rich are bureaucrats? Not even a good Ponzi Scheme...

You are so right, I promise.

Apparently you didn't read it the first time...so, here it is again. You are right about what you're saying, I promise you're right. I used to work for SSA. I have nothing else to say as the Fed boys get very angry when you tell too much. Just take my word for it. If you can't, then converse with others on here. Research and find out when Federal judges can retire (at what age) and get full benefits compared to when YOU (if you're not a Federal judge) can retire and get full benefits. If you can't find it...ask me.

[oldcomputerguy]

"because you didn't want to save for your own retirement, but that's just me. "

I have saved for my retirement and when your turn to apply for SS occurs, I hope you have the courage of your convictions and turn it down. There is no trillions in debt worth mentioning involved, SS is a pay as you go system. Govt debt means little in total anyway, only the service on that debt matters, and it is not an issue. That is a red herring argument.

[oldcomputerguy]

Your self-centered and selfish soliloquy proves my point. It is all about you isn't it? Well you live in this society and have responsibilities to it too. We don't exist in a vacuum.

And stop quoting people from the past who are apparently doing your thinking for you, and start thinking for yourself. It comes across as a ploy to puff up your own self importance.

[Gunslingr3]

Your self-centered and selfish soliloquy proves my point.

Proves what? You didn't answer a single question I asked. I ask you why you think I'm put on this earth to serve you and your family and your response is that I'm selfish?! I got an idea, why don't you serve my family instead. Hell, my family is pretty big, so I'm sure we'll be able to put together more votes than your family if you think that majority rule is sufficient sanction to enslave others. Explain to me at what point the disconnect happens for you. Is it stealing if two brutes meet you on a dark alley and 'vote' to help themselves to your earnings? Is it stealing if the whole block votes to help themselves to your earnings? Or will you just blank this out and claim I'm 'selfish' because I decide spend my time creating wealth for the enjoyment of myself and my family instead of spending my time creating wealth for the enjoyment of you and your family.

It is all about you isn't it?

My life? Yes, my life is about me. My life is the sum of my actions in a certain period of time stretching from my birth to my death. I exchange, to the best of my ability and the extent of my willingness, that period of time which I'm free to use for labor. That labor is exchanged for money. You seem to think you're entitled to portion of that money, in essence entitled to a portion of my life. Why? What makes you think that in a free society every man is intended to be made the slave of every other man?

Well you live in this society and have responsibilities to it too.

I am responsible for my actions, I am not responsible for yours. It is my responsibility to respect your right to life, liberty and property, and we have instituted a government to defend these liberties for everyone. You want to toss liberty aside and stick your hand in my pocket, using the force we've organized for the defense of our rights. You know if you came slinking around my house at night you'd be shot as a thief, but if you just cast the right votes in daylight then stealing is ok in your mind. How abhorrent! How do you do it? "Everyone's doing it! You're selfish! I deserve to reap what others sow!" Are those your battlecries?

We don't exist in a vacuum.

Which is why we have law. Left in a vacuum I wouldn't have to worry about you stealing from me. Because some would steal more boldly than you we've organized force for our collective defense. You're complicit in the hijacking of this force to use for the exact opposite reason it was created. We have government in this country to secure unto each person his life, liberty and property. Why do you think that power should instead be used to plunder some citizens for the benefit of others? By what right?

And stop quoting people from the past who are apparently doing your thinking for you, and start thinking for yourself. It comes across as a ploy to puff up your own self importance.

Weak. You can't explain why you feel entitled to plunder your neighbors, so you harangue me for citing Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the policy you support? Why didn't you just post the quote from Marx that buttresses your argument, you know, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

[inquest]

The problem with most of the complainers is that their greed is greater than their altruism.

Greed? Where did you pull that one out of? Greed is the desire for other people's money - something that characterizes enthusiasts for social programs very well. Since when is it "greedy" to want to control your own money, and decide for yourself what are worthy things to spend it on?

[oldcomputerguy]

"Proves what? You didn't answer a single question I asked"

I don't need to answer, you are answering all your own questions. All you are looking for is a soap box. End of story.

[oldcomputerguy]

"Since when is it "greedy" to want to control your own money, and decide for yourself what are worthy things to spend it on?"

When it conflicts with the norms of the society in which you live. BTW greed has no relationship to whose money, it is defined as "a selfish desire beyond reason". I see a lot of that in this thread.

[inquest]

No, you think you see a lot of it on this thread. You're assuming that because people don't want the government taking their money, they must therefore have no desire to help anyone out. This of course assumes that only government would ever spend money in a beneficial way. Am I right?

[oldcomputerguy]

"Am I right?"

No actually. I see a lot of selfish greed in the postings. I think I can tell the difference.

[inquest]

You're showing that you can't tell the difference. No one on this thread said they would not help out someone in need. All they said is that the government shouldn't be making the decision for them. Are you really having such a hard time understanding this?

[oldcomputerguy]

"Are you really having such a hard time understanding this? "

Why do you care? Why is it you equate greed with not helping someone, I don't. People can be self-centered, greedy and still "help" someone. I don't see them as mutually exclusive.

[Gunslingr3]

I don't need to answer, you are answering all your own questions. All you are looking for is a soap box. End of story.

I'm just curious what your answer is (or did you reach the conclusion others should be compelled by the force of law to provide for you without even thinking?). I'm curious how you reconcile theft in your mind. At what point does the mental blank out occur? Are two thugs in an alley 'voting' to take your money for their use unjust? How many such 'voters' does it take to make stealing a moral act in your view?

[borkrules]

I see a lot of oldcomputerguy's thinking in my older relatives. Normally conservative on most issues, they just get completely irrational and defensive about "their" social security checks. I guess it's somewhat understandable. People do tend to get ornery when you talk about something they perceive as their meal ticket.

How about this, ocg? The Bush plan (small a start as it is) provides for protecting the benefits of folks close to retirement like yourself. How about it? Can I (a younger guy) get the hell out of your great system now? I'll forfeit all the money I've paid in so far, and sign something that says I won't claim anything from the system when I retire. Just let me keep the 14% or so that's being taken now from my check each and every friggin' two weeks. OK? You keep your SS benefits. I'll invest my 14% somewhere other than with Uncle Sam. Or maybe I'll buy my kids new shoes with some of it. Or orthodontics. Or a more reliable car. Or replace the roof on the house. Or repave the driveway. Or give some more to the Parish relief fund. Or give more to a local charity. Or whatever the hell it pleases me to do with my money. The entire idea that the government has to come in, and like a good mommy, take some of my money and put it in her piggbank on the dresser in her room for a "rainy day" is just so maddening I am struggling to comply with FR's rules for posting.

[ThinkDifferent]

when your turn to apply for SS occurs, I hope you have the courage of your convictions and turn it down

Assuming SS exists when I retire, I will accept no more in benefits than I paid in FICA taxes, indexed for inflation. Although there's very little chance I'll live long enough to get to that point, since in order to keep the program solvent taxes must be raised and/or benefits cut substantially.

There is no trillions in debt worth mentioning involved, SS is a pay as you go system.

It is precisely because SS is a pay as you go system that there are trillions of dollars worth of obligations outstanding, that can only be fulfilled by heavily taxing future workers.