Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
It’s my body, not the governments
Replies
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I have no problem with the concept of possessing personal freedom to be reckless , as long as the person who engages in this doesn't become a liability to the government as a result.
For example, go ahead and abuse steroids and drugs or refuse to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts, but if this decision results in an impairment to your health, the ensuing medical treatment and other costs associated with the health problem (lost work, for example) are completely on you, not the government. You can't ask the government to butt out of your life when it suits you and then scurry over and ask for government assistance when the *kitten* hits the fan...
Exactly...and the problem is there isn't a civilized society on this planet that would be comfortable with you "opting out" of getting medical treatment if you need it to survive but can't personally afford it. No one is comfortable with allowing someone who is disabled to the point they cannot work and becoming destitute just end up starving on the street somewhere. Someone will end up paying for it and that someone is society as a whole. Therefore society is pressured to put into place laws and fines and taxes on things that can lead down that road....because logic and financial sense.
The only way we end up in some 100% libertarian/anarchist utopia where personal freedom is all that there is is if we get to the point where we are okay with people dying when they could have been saved with a little bit of help from those around them.
Don't get me wrong, I am a big proponent of personal responsibility and personal freedom. But I also like roads, education and health care for all and those things need to be paid for and it makes sense to discourage/punish those who would value their "personal freedom" over the needs of society.7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
No, my point is contrary to the post quoted, I found the 401(k) to be superior to Social Security and that there was not incentive for the military to lower costs. Even when contracted out, unless the branch spending the money has an incentive to spend less, they will spend every dollar allocated, even if the goods or services are not needed.MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »When I was in the military, people are rated based on the size of their kingdom. If an organization had money left over at the end of the fiscal year, they didn't return it for others to use. They spent it so they would get as much if not more the next fiscal year.
I'm not entirely clear on your point here. Are you suggesting that the delivery of military effect is something that should be provided by the private sector?
So the issue isn't with the delivery of military effect being a government function?
I'd agree that the behaviours that incremental budgeting encourages are unhelpful, but that's an issue with the budgeting technique rather than public services.
Zero based budgeting encourages its own bad behaviours, although in truth I think it's a more comprehensive approach to it.
The issue is blind belief that either government or private sector is the best.
Why not give people the choice? I.E. if one believes Social Security is better than a 401(k) let them VOLUNTARILY put their money in Social Security and live with the outcome. If others believe a 401(k) is the better option, instead of making them be part of Social Security (all or just the income security portion of FICA taxes) let them choose. Maybe they choose 0-100% of the 6.2% portion of their FICA taxes to go into SS and a similar choice for the employer's matching 6.2% "contribution."
But just passing a law saying you must be part of this great plan we've developed may not be the best for all involved.
I know I could be retired in my mid-50s had I had control of the 12.4% taken each year and immediately spent instead of modestly invested in index funds.
That's a high-tech job that could be filled by another instead of me, if I had control over those funds.
Instead, I'm forced into SS where not only must I contribute, but I'll only see 30% of my indexed monthly income s a benefit vs the worker who paid closer to the minimum who will get 90% of his indexed monthly income at full retirement age.
It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
I'd not really responded to the issue about pensions, as the US system isn't one I'm familiar with.
Clearly something that you feel strongly about, but I was more interested in digging into your issue with delivery of militarily effect.0 -
How totally ironic. A man complaining that the government should acknowledge that his body is solely HIS, and the government shouldn't interfere. Go ahead and preach that to women, because we surely wouldn't understand that concept.........!22
-
How totally ironic. A man complaining that the government should acknowledge that his body is solely HIS, and the government shouldn't interfere. Go ahead and preach that to women, because we surely wouldn't understand that concept.........!
To be fair it is only ironic if the original poster supports government interference in the case of women and their reproductive rights and given he didn't say anything about that I think that is a rather unfair assumption to make.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
Have you considered that if you have 401k options and work in the tech sector that the existence of social security may intentionally be not "for you"? That the purpose of said deal is not to support you but to support others who have a much stronger need for support? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair enough, but it seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what programs like social security are for if you think they are to enable well off people to retire early.
Its more to ensure that people who have been blue collar low wage all their life don't end up in utter destitution when they can no longer work because we, as a society, don't want to see that happen. You putting into a 401k for yourself isn't going to make that happen and those blue collar workers probably don't have matched 401k's and stock options available to them because those are perks not a protective social net.
Then maybe they should let me opt out. If the system can't make it without my "contribution" then the system is broken.
If you need to force others into something to make it work, it's not well designed.
7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
Have you considered that if you have 401k options and work in the tech sector that the existence of social security may intentionally be not "for you"? That the purpose of said deal is not to support you but to support others who have a much stronger need for support? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair enough, but it seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what programs like social security are for if you think they are to enable well off people to retire early
Its more to ensure that people who have been blue collar low wage all their life don't end up in utter destitution when they can no longer work because we, as a society, don't want to see that happen. You putting into a 401k for yourself isn't going to make that happen and those blue collar workers probably don't have matched 401k's and stock options available to them because those are perks not a protective social net.
Then maybe they should let me opt out. If the system can't make it without my "contribution" then the system is broken.
If you need to force others into something to make it work, it's not well designed.
So anything that uses tax dollars to build and maintain is "not well designed" in your opinion? We should rely on people not only being altruistic enough but also taking the time to figure out how to allocate their funds in a balanced way to not only fund the things directly in front of their face that obviously affect them but also the more subtle things like the maintenance of the road 40 miles away that acts as a major transport lane for goods that come into the city in order to stock the stores in the local suburbs?
Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are a recognition that there are social services that we all benefit from either directly (through our own use) or indirectly (through people who support us using them) that require funding and that it is unreasonable to expect individuals to have the time to figure out exactly how to distribute a portion of their income to fund all of them. There are thousands of jobs and workers dedicated to figuring out how to best distrubute those funds for a reason and sure they probably aren't getting it 100% correct but they are doing a better job than I would if I tried to divy up a portion of my salary to fund absolutely everything that I utilize either directly or indirectly within the society I am a part of.
Just because you personally don't see a direct benefit or use from a given service does not mean that people who provide services to you aren't reliant on those services. The truck driver who keeps working knowing they have some protection in their retirement through social security and who drives over roads maintained through federal and state funding benefits you. Are you saying that the way that should be funded is not through taxation but bu you personally figuring out absolutely everything that supports you and what portion of their work supports you relative to other people and then sending them small checks to contribute to their maintenance and support?
Your success and my success aren't islands...that success is built on a foundation of a society with many players and contributors. The government taxes us in part to support that infrastructure, both literal infrastructure such as roads as well as personnel resource such as the labor force that helps support it. Perhaps you and I personally don't benefit from or need social security because of our stock options and 401ks, but a hell of a lot of people who provide the support structure necessary for our success do and therefore yeah, you we probably be contributing to that. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that is the very reason why the tax is necessary.17 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?13 -
Politics lies downstream of culture. Any government quickly learns this to their own peril when its ambition exceeds its grasp.
Why legislate something you cannot possibly enforce?4 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »For those who advocate minimal government, I wonder how they propose completing national collaborative projects? And if another agency is used, how is it any less bureaucratic than the government?
Take roads for instance. An enterprising citizen may be able to take care of the pot-hole outside their property, but what about a nation spanning highway or railway? Such projects demand collaborative effort.
There is a difference in a collaborative effort in providing infrastructure and the government (city, state, national) telling you that you can no longer buy a Big Gulp soda because that's too much sugar.
There is also a difference between a government telling you that sugary drinks are illegal and a government that imposes additional taxes on unnecessary foods and drinks tied to the obesity epidemic as a means of helping to offset additional health care costs that they result in.
Making things adults choose to use that harm their own health illegal in the sense of jailtime I think is extreme and inappropriate. Discouraging their use through additional taxes or fines in order to offset the actual monetary cost they place on the society as a whole just makes financial sense.
I don't want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is applauded. I want to live in a country where being a reckless jerk is tolerated but there are consequences to that sort of behavior.
Then why don't we just go ahead and legislate or tax morality/ sexuality as well? Government is taking care of people who get and spread AIDS and other diseases due to lifestyle choices in this area too. So should the government place extra Taxes on people who are gay? Or single and sexually active? What other inappropriate behaviors should the government TAX in order to try and control that behavior? And who gets to decide which behaviors to tax or not tax? Does this also make sense to you?
I'm not saying I am fine with the government taxing things into oblivion because some people don't like them, I am saying I am fine with the government taxing things to recoup costs that those specific things place upon the society. I am for personal freedom of adults, I just think it is silly to act like there should be absolutely no cost or consequences for ones decisions imposed by the society in which you live.
The financial cost of drinking alcohol on society is fairly evident in increased incidences of death, liver disease and crime. There is an additional tax placed on alcohol to help offset this cost as well as to discourage its use. I don't have a problem with that.
What is the financial cost of being gay?
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
So anything that uses tax dollars to build and maintain is "not well designed" in your opinion? We should rely on people not only being altruistic enough but also taking the time to figure out how to allocate their funds in a balanced way to not only fund the things directly in front of their face that obviously affect them but also the more subtle things like the maintenance of the road 40 miles away that acts as a major transport lane for goods that come into the city in order to stock the stores in the local suburbs?
Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are a recognition that there are social services that we all benefit from either directly (through our own use) or indirectly (through people who support us using them) that require funding and that it is unreasonable to expect individuals to have the time to figure out exactly how to distribute a portion of their income to fund all of them. There are thousands of jobs and workers dedicated to figuring out how to best distrubute those funds for a reason and sure they probably aren't getting it 100% correct but they are doing a better job than I would if I tried to divy up a portion of my salary to fund absolutely everything that I utilize either directly or indirectly within the society I am a part of.
Just because you personally don't see a direct benefit or use from a given service does not mean that people who provide services to you aren't reliant on those services. The truck driver who keeps working knowing they have some protection in their retirement through social security and who drives over roads maintained through federal and state funding benefits you. Are you saying that the way that should be funded is not through taxation but bu you personally figuring out absolutely everything that supports you and what portion of their work supports you relative to other people and then sending them small checks to contribute to their maintenance and support?
Your success and my success aren't islands...that success is built on a foundation of a society with many players and contributors. The government taxes us in part to support that infrastructure, both literal infrastructure such as roads as well as personnel resource such as the labor force that helps support it. Perhaps you and I personally don't benefit from or need social security because of our stock options and 401ks, but a hell of a lot of people who provide the support structure necessary for our success do and therefore yeah, you we probably be contributing to that. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that is the very reason why the tax is necessary.
As I've said before, I'm not a "Taxes are theft Libertarian."
However, I do think that income redistribution done by elected officials is evil on many fronts.
If you want to give your money away, feel free to do so as you see fit. I make donations of my time, talent and treasure.
However, I think I'm far better at it than those who buy votes with taxpayer money.
Therefore, I see a difference between building a road, a school and other projects that help the entire community and projects where politicians arbitrarily decide how much you should keep and how much of what you make should be taken from you and given to others.
It is a disingenuous comparison to equate public works projects such as roads, schools and sewers with programs that take from one taxpayer and provide an income to others.
9 -
This kind of attitude reminds me a lot of how people misconstrue and abuse the concept of "freedom of speech" all the time.
Person says something people find insulting on air during an interview. Those people call for a boycott of that persons products and as a result they end up losing their business. That person then claims that their "freedom of speech" is being abridged by the actions of those people and that they deserve protections against that happening under the constitution.
No, that is not what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech simply means that the government isn't allowed to arrest you and lock you up due to political speech. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and have no consequences as a result of what you chose to say.
Similarly you are free to act as you see fit as an adult and you can. You can drive your car without wearing a seatbelt. You can drive your car over the speed limit or drive recklessly. All that might happen is you might get fined because society has decided that that sort of behavior should be discouraged and it should be discouraged through financial means that will help to offset the societal damage that sort of behavior causes. Now if your reckless behavior actually ends up directly endangering the lives of others or harming someone else then it becomes criminal. If it ends up harming yourself it isn't criminal. That distinction is pretty important and I feel like it is being ignored.
There is a big difference between locking someone up and dissuading them from certain behaviors through societal imposed taxes, fines and other consequences.
Freedom of expression, speech and action is not the same thing as freedom from consequences.21 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
No, my point is contrary to the post quoted, I found the 401(k) to be superior to Social Security and that there was not incentive for the military to lower costs. Even when contracted out, unless the branch spending the money has an incentive to spend less, they will spend every dollar allocated, even if the goods or services are not needed.MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »When I was in the military, people are rated based on the size of their kingdom. If an organization had money left over at the end of the fiscal year, they didn't return it for others to use. They spent it so they would get as much if not more the next fiscal year.
I'm not entirely clear on your point here. Are you suggesting that the delivery of military effect is something that should be provided by the private sector?
So the issue isn't with the delivery of military effect being a government function?
I'd agree that the behaviours that incremental budgeting encourages are unhelpful, but that's an issue with the budgeting technique rather than public services.
Zero based budgeting encourages its own bad behaviours, although in truth I think it's a more comprehensive approach to it.
The issue is blind belief that either government or private sector is the best.
Why not give people the choice? I.E. if one believes Social Security is better than a 401(k) let them VOLUNTARILY put their money in Social Security and live with the outcome. If others believe a 401(k) is the better option, instead of making them be part of Social Security (all or just the income security portion of FICA taxes) let them choose. Maybe they choose 0-100% of the 6.2% portion of their FICA taxes to go into SS and a similar choice for the employer's matching 6.2% "contribution."
But just passing a law saying you must be part of this great plan we've developed may not be the best for all involved.
I know I could be retired in my mid-50s had I had control of the 12.4% taken each year and immediately spent instead of modestly invested in index funds.
That's a high-tech job that could be filled by another instead of me, if I had control over those funds.
Instead, I'm forced into SS where not only must I contribute, but I'll only see 30% of my indexed monthly income s a benefit vs the worker who paid closer to the minimum who will get 90% of his indexed monthly income at full retirement age.
It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
The basic point I am making is that, in a complex, modern society of 330 million people, it doesn’t always get to be about you. (Or me, or any single individual for that matter). The design of something like SSI and the issues involved are a lot more complex than just saying “I want my 12.4%, because I want it”. (And what makes you think for even an instant that the company you work for would be willing to turn over that 6.2% if they weren’t “forced” to by the government? They would be crying “freedom” more quickly, more loudly, and more effectively than you).
And, as recent years have shown, there is no guarantee that you could invest your money that successfully, or that other factors over which you have no control wouldn’t intervene. Then the rest of society would have to pitch in and support you. A society has to take the long view of what is the best fit for everyone. I understand your point, but I think you are making the common mistake of seeing things only from the point of view of your narrow self-interest (not meant as criticism). The track record of the “voluntary” system you favor overall is not encouraging. We are going to be facing a crisis in the future because the vast majority of people in 401K plans have done a pretty poor job of investing—partly because they haven’t been able to invest much, partly because they aren’t very good at investing, and partly because their earnings are sharply reduced by fees that are charged (401K plans are in large part government-sponsored welfare programs for banks).
Obviously, you think you are the outlier. And you very well could be. And so from your perspective, it seems unfair that you are “forced” into a system that you think puts you at a disadvantage. And that could very well be true. My feeling is that society cannot risk having millions of elderly, impoverished citizens, just so that a special few (like you and me) can do better. IMO, that might suck, but that’s the price you pay for living in a modern nation with all the benefits that America has to offer. Overall, it’s not such a bad deal.
I didn’t read all of it, but this site seemed to be a honest attempt to lay out the pros and cons:
https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
So anything that uses tax dollars to build and maintain is "not well designed" in your opinion? We should rely on people not only being altruistic enough but also taking the time to figure out how to allocate their funds in a balanced way to not only fund the things directly in front of their face that obviously affect them but also the more subtle things like the maintenance of the road 40 miles away that acts as a major transport lane for goods that come into the city in order to stock the stores in the local suburbs?
Taxes aren't evil. Taxes are a recognition that there are social services that we all benefit from either directly (through our own use) or indirectly (through people who support us using them) that require funding and that it is unreasonable to expect individuals to have the time to figure out exactly how to distribute a portion of their income to fund all of them. There are thousands of jobs and workers dedicated to figuring out how to best distrubute those funds for a reason and sure they probably aren't getting it 100% correct but they are doing a better job than I would if I tried to divy up a portion of my salary to fund absolutely everything that I utilize either directly or indirectly within the society I am a part of.
Just because you personally don't see a direct benefit or use from a given service does not mean that people who provide services to you aren't reliant on those services. The truck driver who keeps working knowing they have some protection in their retirement through social security and who drives over roads maintained through federal and state funding benefits you. Are you saying that the way that should be funded is not through taxation but bu you personally figuring out absolutely everything that supports you and what portion of their work supports you relative to other people and then sending them small checks to contribute to their maintenance and support?
Your success and my success aren't islands...that success is built on a foundation of a society with many players and contributors. The government taxes us in part to support that infrastructure, both literal infrastructure such as roads as well as personnel resource such as the labor force that helps support it. Perhaps you and I personally don't benefit from or need social security because of our stock options and 401ks, but a hell of a lot of people who provide the support structure necessary for our success do and therefore yeah, you we probably be contributing to that. The fact that you don't seem to recognize that is the very reason why the tax is necessary.
As I've said before, I'm not a "Taxes are theft Libertarian."
However, I do think that income redistribution done by elected officials is evil on many fronts.
If you want to give your money away, feel free to do so as you see fit. I make donations of my time, talent and treasure.
However, I think I'm far better at it than those who buy votes with taxpayer money.
Therefore, I see a difference between building a road, a school and other projects that help the entire community and projects where politicians arbitrarily decide how much you should keep and how much of what you make should be taken from you and given to others.
It is a disingenuous comparison to equate public works projects such as roads, schools and sewers with programs that take from one taxpayer and provide an income to others.
People build those roads, people staff those schools, people build and maintain those sewers.
Most of those people, the labor force, do not make enough money to save enough to retire at even age 70 and have enough money to survive to what has become the average lifespan of reaching the 80s.
Just a quick google of "sewer maintenance worker salary"
https://www.indeed.com/salaries/Sewer-Maintenance-Worker-Salaries
Average in the US is $12.50 an hour which would be $26k a year BEFORE taxes. You think they get a 401k?
Not only that if your job is physical labor chances are you aren't working till the age of 70 anyways and so most likely you are going to have to retire earlier. They aren't given 401k matching, they don't have stock options. We, you and I, as professionals rely upon their labor...we use their labor. So we have two ethical options here. Option 1 raise the minimum wage and the wages of day laborers and blue collar workers to the point where they have sufficient income to remain above poverty, raise an family and save enough to retire OR contribute to a social safety net that at least stops them from starving to death if they end up old and infirm without a cent to their name which is just going to happen to a certain percentage of a workforce you pay $26k a year to. Not everyone our society uses for labor has their own support structure, not everyone has a family that can support them, not everyone has a charity giving to them.
Infrastructure doesn't just pop into being, it is built and maintained by a labor force. Programs like social security are there for the benefit of that labor force for reasons that I hope are fairly clear in terms of ethics.
10 -
The basic point I am making is that, in a complex, modern society of 330 million people, it doesn’t always get to be about you. (Or me, or any single individual for that matter). The design of something like SSI and the issues involved are a lot more complex than just saying “I want my 12.4%, because I want it”. (And what makes you think for even an instant that the company you work for would be willing to turn over that 6.2% if they weren’t “forced” to by the government? They would be crying “freedom” more quickly, more loudly, and more effectively than you).
And, as recent years have shown, there is no guarantee that you could invest your money that successfully, or that other factors over which you have no control wouldn’t intervene. Then the rest of society would have to pitch in and support you. A society has to take the long view of what is the best fit for everyone. I understand your point, but I think you are making the common mistake of seeing things only from the point of view of your narrow self-interest (not meant as criticism). The track record of the “voluntary” system you favor overall is not encouraging. We are going to be facing a crisis in the future because the vast majority of people in 401K plans have done a pretty poor job of investing—partly because they haven’t been able to invest much, partly because they aren’t very good at investing, and partly because their earnings are sharply reduced by fees that are charged (401K plans are in large part government-sponsored welfare programs for banks).
Obviously, you think you are the outlier. And you very well could be. And so from your perspective, it seems unfair that you are “forced” into a system that you think puts you at a disadvantage. And that could very well be true. My feeling is that society cannot risk having millions of elderly, impoverished citizens, just so that a special few (like you and me) can do better. IMO, that might suck, but that’s the price you pay for living in a modern nation with all the benefits that America has to offer. Overall, it’s not such a bad deal.
I didn’t read all of it, but this site seemed to be a honest attempt to lay out the pros and cons:
https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
Want to keep what you make is exactly the opposite of "what about me." It is never selfish to want to keep what you make. To me, the ones who are selfish are those who think it's the job of society to take care of them or others.
If I screw up, it should be obvious that I believe it's MY job to support myself, not societies.
Therefore, I'm not the one saying, or even suggesting that society has an obligation to support me. I'm saying just the opposite, it's my job. Not yours, not society's, not any political party or government scheme.
It's my job.
Why can't society "risk" having millions impoverished? Because they decided that society is responsible to care for others?
Putting that burden on society is the ultimate in selfish. If you are against the impoverished suffering, then feel free to use your time, talent and treasure to help out.
But passing the buck to "society" is the opposite of compassion. Compassion is never measured by what government programs you support. Compassion is only measured by what you do with YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure. It's never measured by you political policy or representatives or programs you favor.
13 -
tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
No, my point is contrary to the post quoted, I found the 401(k) to be superior to Social Security and that there was not incentive for the military to lower costs. Even when contracted out, unless the branch spending the money has an incentive to spend less, they will spend every dollar allocated, even if the goods or services are not needed.MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »When I was in the military, people are rated based on the size of their kingdom. If an organization had money left over at the end of the fiscal year, they didn't return it for others to use. They spent it so they would get as much if not more the next fiscal year.
I'm not entirely clear on your point here. Are you suggesting that the delivery of military effect is something that should be provided by the private sector?
So the issue isn't with the delivery of military effect being a government function?
I'd agree that the behaviours that incremental budgeting encourages are unhelpful, but that's an issue with the budgeting technique rather than public services.
Zero based budgeting encourages its own bad behaviours, although in truth I think it's a more comprehensive approach to it.
The issue is blind belief that either government or private sector is the best.
Why not give people the choice? I.E. if one believes Social Security is better than a 401(k) let them VOLUNTARILY put their money in Social Security and live with the outcome. If others believe a 401(k) is the better option, instead of making them be part of Social Security (all or just the income security portion of FICA taxes) let them choose. Maybe they choose 0-100% of the 6.2% portion of their FICA taxes to go into SS and a similar choice for the employer's matching 6.2% "contribution."
But just passing a law saying you must be part of this great plan we've developed may not be the best for all involved.
I know I could be retired in my mid-50s had I had control of the 12.4% taken each year and immediately spent instead of modestly invested in index funds.
That's a high-tech job that could be filled by another instead of me, if I had control over those funds.
Instead, I'm forced into SS where not only must I contribute, but I'll only see 30% of my indexed monthly income s a benefit vs the worker who paid closer to the minimum who will get 90% of his indexed monthly income at full retirement age.
It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
The basic point I am making is that, in a complex, modern society of 330 million people, it doesn’t always get to be about you. (Or me, or any single individual for that matter). The design of something like SSI and the issues involved are a lot more complex than just saying “I want my 12.4%, because I want it”. (And what makes you think for even an instant that the company you work for would be willing to turn over that 6.2% if they weren’t “forced” to by the government? They would be crying “freedom” more quickly, more loudly, and more effectively than you).
And, as recent years have shown, there is no guarantee that you could invest your money that successfully, or that other factors over which you have no control wouldn’t intervene. Then the rest of society would have to pitch in and support you. A society has to take the long view of what is the best fit for everyone. I understand your point, but I think you are making the common mistake of seeing things only from the point of view of your narrow self-interest (not meant as criticism). The track record of the “voluntary” system you favor overall is not encouraging. We are going to be facing a crisis in the future because the vast majority of people in 401K plans have done a pretty poor job of investing—partly because they haven’t been able to invest much, partly because they aren’t very good at investing, and partly because their earnings are sharply reduced by fees that are charged (401K plans are in large part government-sponsored welfare programs for banks).
Obviously, you think you are the outlier. And you very well could be. And so from your perspective, it seems unfair that you are “forced” into a system that you think puts you at a disadvantage. And that could very well be true. My feeling is that society cannot risk having millions of elderly, impoverished citizens, just so that a special few (like you and me) can do better. IMO, that might suck, but that’s the price you pay for living in a modern nation with all the benefits that America has to offer. Overall, it’s not such a bad deal.
I didn’t read all of it, but this site seemed to be a honest attempt to lay out the pros and cons:
https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
The problem with SSI is 1) if I could have taken that 12.4% and invested it myself in the same portfolio as my 401k I would have a very good return and benefits far exceeding what I will draw from SSI some day. 2) I can start withdrawing from my 401k at 59.5 years old, while I have to wait until I'm 67 to get my full SSI benefit. So by being locked into a non-customizable SSI program, I get less money and I get it later.
I get that many people do not want to invest their own SSI - for those, they can opt for the old system and have a static benefit available. For the rest of us - it is our benefit that we are paying into, so let us have some control over it.
8 -
tbright1965 wrote: »
The basic point I am making is that, in a complex, modern society of 330 million people, it doesn’t always get to be about you. (Or me, or any single individual for that matter). The design of something like SSI and the issues involved are a lot more complex than just saying “I want my 12.4%, because I want it”. (And what makes you think for even an instant that the company you work for would be willing to turn over that 6.2% if they weren’t “forced” to by the government? They would be crying “freedom” more quickly, more loudly, and more effectively than you).
And, as recent years have shown, there is no guarantee that you could invest your money that successfully, or that other factors over which you have no control wouldn’t intervene. Then the rest of society would have to pitch in and support you. A society has to take the long view of what is the best fit for everyone. I understand your point, but I think you are making the common mistake of seeing things only from the point of view of your narrow self-interest (not meant as criticism). The track record of the “voluntary” system you favor overall is not encouraging. We are going to be facing a crisis in the future because the vast majority of people in 401K plans have done a pretty poor job of investing—partly because they haven’t been able to invest much, partly because they aren’t very good at investing, and partly because their earnings are sharply reduced by fees that are charged (401K plans are in large part government-sponsored welfare programs for banks).
Obviously, you think you are the outlier. And you very well could be. And so from your perspective, it seems unfair that you are “forced” into a system that you think puts you at a disadvantage. And that could very well be true. My feeling is that society cannot risk having millions of elderly, impoverished citizens, just so that a special few (like you and me) can do better. IMO, that might suck, but that’s the price you pay for living in a modern nation with all the benefits that America has to offer. Overall, it’s not such a bad deal.
I didn’t read all of it, but this site seemed to be a honest attempt to lay out the pros and cons:
https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
Want to keep what you make is exactly the opposite of "what about me." It is never selfish to want to keep what you make. To me, the ones who are selfish are those who think it's the job of society to take care of them or others.
If I screw up, it should be obvious that I believe it's MY job to support myself, not societies.
Therefore, I'm not the one saying, or even suggesting that society has an obligation to support me. I'm saying just the opposite, it's my job. Not yours, not society's, not any political party or government scheme.
It's my job.
Why can't society "risk" having millions impoverished? Because they decided that society is responsible to care for others?
Putting that burden on society is the ultimate in selfish. If you are against the impoverished suffering, then feel free to use your time, talent and treasure to help out.
But passing the buck to "society" is the opposite of compassion. Compassion is never measured by what government programs you support. Compassion is only measured by what you do with YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure. It's never measured by you political policy or representatives or programs you favor.
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.3 -
If I screw up, it should be obvious that I believe it's MY job to support myself, not societies.
I agree. But in what way did someone who works as a sewer maintenance worker their entire life at today's wage of $26k a year and simply does not make enough money to retire without being destitute "screw up" exactly?
Does the society who relies in part upon their labor owe them at least enough to be able to eat and house themselves when they retire?
Perhaps the answer is to ensure that there is no such thing as a job that does not pay enough to comfortably retire and no such thing as a job that doesn't provide disability benefits to anyone who is injured on that job. But until that happens a social safety net payed for by tax dollars is kind of necessary unless we want to allow people like that to become homeless and destitute.
I recognize that there are people out there who game and abuse the system and take money from those safety nets as a result of their personal failings or laziness and yeah they are filth and we need to do what we can to make sure those sorts of loopholes and abuses are stopped. Can you at least meet me half-way here and recognize that with the current salary structures and benefits afforded to certain laborers there are people who can do an honest days work every day of their lives and still be destitute when they retire without some form of assistance?10 -
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »
No, my point is contrary to the post quoted, I found the 401(k) to be superior to Social Security and that there was not incentive for the military to lower costs. Even when contracted out, unless the branch spending the money has an incentive to spend less, they will spend every dollar allocated, even if the goods or services are not needed.MeanderingMammal wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »When I was in the military, people are rated based on the size of their kingdom. If an organization had money left over at the end of the fiscal year, they didn't return it for others to use. They spent it so they would get as much if not more the next fiscal year.
I'm not entirely clear on your point here. Are you suggesting that the delivery of military effect is something that should be provided by the private sector?
So the issue isn't with the delivery of military effect being a government function?
I'd agree that the behaviours that incremental budgeting encourages are unhelpful, but that's an issue with the budgeting technique rather than public services.
Zero based budgeting encourages its own bad behaviours, although in truth I think it's a more comprehensive approach to it.
The issue is blind belief that either government or private sector is the best.
Why not give people the choice? I.E. if one believes Social Security is better than a 401(k) let them VOLUNTARILY put their money in Social Security and live with the outcome. If others believe a 401(k) is the better option, instead of making them be part of Social Security (all or just the income security portion of FICA taxes) let them choose. Maybe they choose 0-100% of the 6.2% portion of their FICA taxes to go into SS and a similar choice for the employer's matching 6.2% "contribution."
But just passing a law saying you must be part of this great plan we've developed may not be the best for all involved.
I know I could be retired in my mid-50s had I had control of the 12.4% taken each year and immediately spent instead of modestly invested in index funds.
That's a high-tech job that could be filled by another instead of me, if I had control over those funds.
Instead, I'm forced into SS where not only must I contribute, but I'll only see 30% of my indexed monthly income s a benefit vs the worker who paid closer to the minimum who will get 90% of his indexed monthly income at full retirement age.
It's a bad deal all the way around for me.
The basic point I am making is that, in a complex, modern society of 330 million people, it doesn’t always get to be about you. (Or me, or any single individual for that matter). The design of something like SSI and the issues involved are a lot more complex than just saying “I want my 12.4%, because I want it”. (And what makes you think for even an instant that the company you work for would be willing to turn over that 6.2% if they weren’t “forced” to by the government? They would be crying “freedom” more quickly, more loudly, and more effectively than you).
And, as recent years have shown, there is no guarantee that you could invest your money that successfully, or that other factors over which you have no control wouldn’t intervene. Then the rest of society would have to pitch in and support you. A society has to take the long view of what is the best fit for everyone. I understand your point, but I think you are making the common mistake of seeing things only from the point of view of your narrow self-interest (not meant as criticism). The track record of the “voluntary” system you favor overall is not encouraging. We are going to be facing a crisis in the future because the vast majority of people in 401K plans have done a pretty poor job of investing—partly because they haven’t been able to invest much, partly because they aren’t very good at investing, and partly because their earnings are sharply reduced by fees that are charged (401K plans are in large part government-sponsored welfare programs for banks).
Obviously, you think you are the outlier. And you very well could be. And so from your perspective, it seems unfair that you are “forced” into a system that you think puts you at a disadvantage. And that could very well be true. My feeling is that society cannot risk having millions of elderly, impoverished citizens, just so that a special few (like you and me) can do better. IMO, that might suck, but that’s the price you pay for living in a modern nation with all the benefits that America has to offer. Overall, it’s not such a bad deal.
I didn’t read all of it, but this site seemed to be a honest attempt to lay out the pros and cons:
https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
The problem with SSI is 1) if I could have taken that 12.4% and invested it myself in the same portfolio as my 401k I would have a very good return and benefits far exceeding what I will draw from SSI some day. 2) I can start withdrawing from my 401k at 59.5 years old, while I have to wait until I'm 67 to get my full SSI benefit. So by being locked into a non-customizable SSI program, I get less money and I get it later.
I get that many people do not want to invest their own SSI - for those, they can opt for the old system and have a static benefit available. For the rest of us - it is our benefit that we are paying into, so let us have some control over it.
Again....SS doesn't exist for you or me or people who have enough money and work in a professional career to invest in a matched 401k. It isn't there so that I can retire and get a boat instead of not being able to get a boat. Yeah our ROI putting into SS isn't as good as putting into a 401k. That is because all we put into a 401k goes to us...not all we put into SS goes to us, some of it goes to other people who need it....like truly need it.
If you and I pay into SS then SS has enough funds to take care of the sewer maintenance worker who worked every day of their life until 60 when their knees were failing and they could work no more but still lived to the age of 85. To make sure they had at least enough for a plate of rice and beans and a roof over there head.
If you and I instead took that money and put it into a 401k that 401k isn't going to be giving anything to that sewer maintenance worker at all...we are just going to be able to afford that boat. So what system is in place to make sure that person, who worked dutifully and provided a service that we all benefit from, doesn't die destitute in a ditch somewhere?
The only answer people seem to have for that is "Charity". But honestly if there was a Charity that was large enough and distributed enough to do what the government does with social security then how exactly would it not have the same logistical and financial issues and need for everyone to contribute?11 -
I actually share the view with "Taxes are theft" libertarians that taxation is done through force and that if you don't pay your taxes year after year after year that eventually someone with a gun is going to show up at your door. I do not like the idea of redistribution of wealth at gunpoint and that the harder I work the more of my money gets taken away from me in part to support people who are not bothering to work as hard. Neither of those feel good nor do I like them.
But what is the alternative? The alternative is having people who don't deserve it literally starving and dying because they ended up as part of the labor force....a force that needs to exist and whose low pay is what helps bolster up the success of all of the professionals who rely upon them.
I do not see a practical alternative to making sure those people at least get meals and a roof over their head other than taxation and social services. The idea that if those didn't exist we'd all band together and give to charities that somehow despite having the same logistics to deal with would be much more efficient and suffer much less corruption somehow I feel is just head in the clouds thinking.
So yeah, between having part of my salary taken from me to give to others (some of whom don't deserve it) and having a percentage of the population unable to support themselves to the point of illness starvation and death then I am going to pick the first option.
If you think that is an exaggeration please point to the country that operates without any social service safety nets and does not have an issue with starvation, homelessness and unneccessary death.
Don't get me wrong, I respect people who are making cases against SS and other welfare type programs...I do get the feelings they are expressing, I have them myself. But I don't buy the "charity will do it" answer to what happens if we don't have taxes supporting social services so until I hear a better option I am going to support what systems we currently have in place that prevent mass homelessness, starvation and illness.8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I actually share the view with "Taxes are theft" libertarians that taxation is done through force and that if you don't pay your taxes year after year after year that eventually someone with a gun is going to show up at your door. I do not like the idea of redistribution of wealth at gunpoint and that the harder I work the more of my money gets taken away from me in part to support people who are not bothering to work as hard. Neither of those feel good nor do I like them.
But what is the alternative? The alternative is having people who don't deserve it literally starving and dying because they ended up as part of the labor force....a force that needs to exist and whose low pay is what helps bolster up the success of all of the professionals who rely upon them.
I do not see a practical alternative to making sure those people at least get meals and a roof over their head other than taxation and social services. The idea that if those didn't exist we'd all band together and give to charities that somehow despite having the same logistics to deal with would be much more efficient and suffer much less corruption somehow I feel is just head in the clouds thinking.
So yeah, between having part of my salary taken from me to give to others (some of whom don't deserve it) and having a percentage of the population unable to support themselves to the point of illness starvation and death then I am going to pick the first option.
If you think that is an exaggeration please point to the country that operates without any social service safety nets and does not have an issue with starvation, homelessness and unneccessary death.
Don't get me wrong, I respect people who are making cases against SS and other welfare type programs...I do get the feelings they are expressing, I have them myself. But I don't by the "charity will do it" answer to what happens if we don't have taxes supporting social services so until I hear a better option I am going to support what systems we currently have in place that prevent mass homelessness, starvation and illness.
0 -
I get the feeling people act like the reason that social security doesn't pay out as well as a 401k is because a 401k is privately managed and is efficient while SS is government slow and lumbering and inefficient and wasteful.
That isn't why. A 401k pays out more because when you put into the 401k that is your money which then comes back to you plus whatever interest. When you "put in" to social security it is a tax to support a welfare system that the entire nation is supported by.
Lets take Bob as an example. Bob was born in 1953 and is 65 years old, he is now retired. He worked from the age of 20 as a sewer maintenance worker. He never married or had children, he just worked that one job all of his life. He made inflation adjusted to 2018 $26k every year during that time. Making that much he contributed $1612 every year to social security. Given his after tax income was something like $20k which is $1600 a month, that he had very budget food ($300), rent ($800), health insurance ($300) and car insurance ($50) and car maintenance/gas ($50) to pay he was not able to save basically any money other than about $100 a month. He doesn't have a phone or internet or really any money at all for entertainment or any other such "extravagance."
When he retires social security will pay him $879 a month which is $10,548 a year...about 8 times more than he put in at $1612 a year. If he lives to 85 that would be 20 years of SS payout compared to 40 years worked so he'd get 4x the amount he invested in return. That with the $100 he squirreled away every month responsibly is just about enough to get a rent controlled studio and rice and beans for meals. Medicare covers his basic medical needs.
The fact that Bob gets 4 times more than he put in (or a 400% return even accounting for inflation) on his SS "investment" is why you and I don't get nearly as good of a "return" on our SS investment compared to something like a 401k that doesn't give a cent to Bob. That fact is also what allows Bob to survive and for us to continue to have a labor force paid at those rates that support our infrastructure.
Without social security Bob would have 20 years of unemployment with at maximum $48,000 in savings to survive off of which would be $100 a month. Chances are he'd have less than that given he would likely have had expenses along the way like having to buy another car or maybe buy some clothes now and again. How exactly would he have a roof over his head and food for that? Is that his fault? His failings? His problem?8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
17 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
The only answer people seem to have for that is "Charity". But honestly if there was a Charity that was large enough and distributed enough to do what the government does with social security then how exactly would it not have the same logistical and financial issues and need for everyone to contribute?
But what caused Charity to atrophy? I suggest it's because, with government social safety nets, we all became Scrooge and think it's someone else's job to care for the poor. The modern day version of "are there no poor houses" is "the government should take care of this."
Charity has atrophied because everyone believes they are being charitable by paying their taxes and letting those who buy votes with taxpayer (and borrowed) money decide what constitutes charity.
My heartburn is more about those whose re-election is up for grabs making the choices of what constitutes helping others and then using money taken from others to fund their vision of the greater good.
If you have a vision of the greater good, band together with like minded people and voluntarily give YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure to do so.
I have ZERO problem with that. I do that.
I have no problem with helping others. I believe government is a largely inappropriate vehicle to accomplish those ends. Even worse is when those who are elected get involved. I think of Alexis de Tocqueville and his observations on how our great experiment in self governance will work until our Congress learns it can bribe the electorate with the electorate's money.
I believe we are witnessing the unraveling of this great republic today. The more we suggest is a burden society must bear and government must do it, the weaker our republic and freedoms become.4 -
tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
Well someone has certainly been reading his Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. What a bleak *kitten* view of existence to have and foist upon others.15 -
the mere mention of gvt and its words words words words...just like the gvt.
7 -
tbright1965 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
The only answer people seem to have for that is "Charity". But honestly if there was a Charity that was large enough and distributed enough to do what the government does with social security then how exactly would it not have the same logistical and financial issues and need for everyone to contribute?
But what caused Charity to atrophy? I suggest it's because, with government social safety nets, we all became Scrooge and think it's someone else's job to care for the poor. The modern day version of "are there no poor houses" is "the government should take care of this."
Charity has atrophied because everyone believes they are being charitable by paying their taxes and letting those who buy votes with taxpayer (and borrowed) money decide what constitutes charity.
My heartburn is more about those whose re-election is up for grabs making the choices of what constitutes helping others and then using money taken from others to fund their vision of the greater good.
If you have a vision of the greater good, band together with like minded people and voluntarily give YOUR time, YOUR talent and YOUR treasure to do so.
I have ZERO problem with that. I do that.
I have no problem with helping others. I believe government is a largely inappropriate vehicle to accomplish those ends. Even worse is when those who are elected get involved. I think of Alexis de Tocqueville and his observations on how our great experiment in self governance will work until our Congress learns it can bribe the electorate with the electorate's money.
I believe we are witnessing the unraveling of this great republic today. The more we suggest is a burden society must bear and government must do it, the weaker our republic and freedoms become.
Can you give a single example throughout all of time and space where there was a society that had no tax paid government social security or safety net but yet had no issue with homelessness or illness or poverty due to charitable giving? I'm not seeing one so to me this sort of thinking is just dreaming of some utopic vision that shows no signs of actually having ever existed.10 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I get the feeling people act like the reason that social security doesn't pay out as well as a 401k is because a 401k is privately managed and is efficient while SS is government slow and lumbering and inefficient and wasteful.
That isn't why. A 401k pays out more because when you put into the 401k that is your money which then comes back to you plus whatever interest. When you "put in" to social security it is a tax to support a welfare system that the entire nation is supported by.
Lets take Bob as an example. Bob was born in 1953 and is 65 years old, he is now retired. He worked from the age of 20 as a sewer maintenance worker. He never married or had children, he just worked that one job all of his life. He made inflation adjusted to 2018 $26k every year during that time. Making that much he contributed $1612 every year to social security. Given his after tax income was something like $20k which is $1600 a month, that he had very budget food ($300), rent ($800), health insurance ($300) and car insurance ($50) and car maintenance/gas ($50) to pay he was not able to save basically any money other than about $100 a month. He doesn't have a phone or internet or really any money at all for entertainment or any other such "extravagance."
When he retires social security will pay him $879 a month which is $10,548 a year...about 8 times more than he put in at $1612 a year. If he lives to 85 that would be 20 years of SS payout compared to 40 years worked so he'd get 4x the amount he invested in return. That with the $100 he squirreled away every month responsibly is just about enough to get a rent controlled studio and rice and beans for meals. Medicare covers his basic medical needs.
The fact that Bob gets 4 times more than he put in (or a 400% return even accounting for inflation) on his SS "investment" is why you and I don't get nearly as good of a "return" on our SS investment compared to something like a 401k that doesn't give a cent to Bob. That fact is also what allows Bob to survive and for us to continue to have a labor force paid at those rates that support our infrastructure.
Without social security Bob would have 20 years of unemployment with at maximum $48,000 in savings to survive off of which would be $100 a month. Chances are he'd have less than that given he would likely have had expenses along the way like having to buy another car or maybe buy some clothes now and again. How exactly would he have a roof over his head and food for that? Is that his fault? His failings? His problem?
I understand the math and understand that the reason SS doesn't pay as well is multifaceted:
1) First, your return is subject to two bend points where you get 90%, 32% then 15% of portions of your indexed monthly income: https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
2) It's not invested. It has nothing to do with public vs private. It has everything to do with the funds are not invested in such a fashion to even outpace inflation, let alone grow. So as we are moving towards some of the lowest labor participation rates since the 1970s, SS doesn't (or won't soon) collect enough to pay benefits. So all those IOUs stored in Al Gore's "lock box" must be cashed in soon. (Hopefully Tipper isn't getting them if they divorce.)
The system started taking less than 2% of a worker's wage, and has increased to 6.2% today, as well as the "contribution" by the employer. Not to mention, full retirement age is being moved out. For the Baby Boomers, it's 65 years of age. Funny how they are making it even later for those who follow. For me, it will be 67 years. So I have pay into the system two additional years to get to full retirement age, and then half my indexed income will be paid back in a monthly benefit at $0.15/indexed dollar earned.
So it's sold as "your retirement savings" or benefit, or something of the sorts, but the "benefit" is greatly diminished for high earners and those who had the misfortune of being born outside the baby boom.
And all of this set by policies and politicians for whom I was too young to vote when they decided to do this.
Yet, I'm stuck with the consequences of their choices and told I should be happy and more charitable about it.
Sorry, bad decisions made by a previous generation or two do not constitute an obligation on my part.
1 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »tbright1965 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
So if there was no safety social net and you lost your investments after you could no longer work, you'd what? Lay down and die? I'm really curious to know what your exact expectations of those with no money and limited ability to earn more are.
This has nothing to do with "compassion," I'm asking about the practical consequences if we all adopted this as a matter of policy.
If I couldn't work and/or couldn't enjoy my life, then why not die?
What is the benefit to keeping around a host of people who cannot care for themselves?
We have the technology to keep people "alive" but are they living? I told my daughter that if I'm 100 and want black coffee and bacon for breakfast, I don't want her suggesting to me or others that I cannot have black coffee and bacon for breakfast.
I believe we spend the most on health care at the end of life for most folks. For what? A few more months of low quality life?
I'd rather have a nice scotch, some beautiful surroundings, and maybe something to ease my pain.
If all I am is a burden to others, maybe it's time to let me move on.
So yeah, if I screwed the pooch with my portfolio and can no longer work, I'm so broken in body and/or mind that I need adult supervision and support, it's time to let me go. There are 7+ billion on this planet, I'm not irreplaceable.
I think it's a leap to suggest that one is incapable of enjoying life just because one can no longer work. My grandmother is retired and she appears to enjoy her life (not being inside her head, I cannot tell for certain).
I don't think the right of someone else to live is dependent on whether or not they provide a tangible "benefit" to me.
This discussion is independent of technology to keep people alive or spending money on end of life health care.
So you would like to die if you no longer had resources. I don't think that's a majority opinion.
It's coming across that you think of humans as interchangeable work machines who have no value apart from what they can produce economically. That may not be what you're trying to communicate, but it's hard for me to read your words without picking up that impression.
Do you think there is value in a human life that doesn't produce anything economically?
I was asked what I'd do, and I answered it.
It's not my place to put a value on the life of another. I don't want that responsibility. If you feel responsible, then pony up. But don't feel obligated to support me. I'd rather people NOT try to keep me around if I cannot support myself.
If others feel otherwise, make plans. Just don't sign me up for your values and expect me to provide my time, talent and treasure to support your vision of the greater good just because those are your values.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions