The economic PLAN to justify/force austerity measures upon the US government (from the 1970s) - starve the beast

[seeker/reader]

------------------

[risveglio]

I have no problems with starving the beast. Though we could speed up the process and just kill the beast. The beast is the problem.

[seeker/reader]

--------------------

[risveglio]

Social Security and Medicare are immoral programs. These programs need to be reduced and/or eliminated. A wise leader would do it slowly, like an addict in rehab but either way there days are rightfully limited.

[seeker/reader]

-------------------

[risveglio]

For what? I promote a voluntary society. I don't find any justification in using the threat of violence to do things that I find to be morally just.

[Blacklight43]

I paid into Social Security all my working life. I am about to turn 70...I live on Social Security now. Are you suggesting I now be starved to death? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Love and Blessings to you all.

[risveglio]

I paid into Social Security all my working life. I am about to turn 70...I live on Social Security now. Are you suggesting I now be starved to death? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Love and Blessings to you all.

No. I am just saying the program is immoral, but I think you should get what you paid into social security, though most under 50 probably won't. I am 37, have been paying into social security for over 20 years and think I should get my share. But the reality is that it is a Ponsi scheme, it is insolvent, and immoral as you do not have a choice to opt in or opt out. As I said, a wise leader would get the country off slowly but we will not get anywhere as a society until we realize we do not need leaders.

[spiritguide]

I paid into Social Security all my working life. I am about to turn 70...I live on Social Security now. Are you suggesting I now be starved to death? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Love and Blessings to you all.

No. I am just saying the program is immoral, but I think you should get what you paid into social security, though most under 50 probably won't. I am 37, have been paying into social security for over 20 years and think I should get my share. But the reality is that it is a Ponsi scheme, it is insolvent, and immoral as you do not have a choice to opt in or opt out. As I said, a wise leader would get the country off slowly but we will not get anywhere as a society until we realize we do not need leaders.

Prove to us that your statement of it being insolvent holds facts. Your opt in and opt out statement is not quite right either, can you explain this to us.

Peace!

[Blacklight43]

I paid into Social Security all my working life. I am about to turn 70...I live on Social Security now. Are you suggesting I now be starved to death? Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Love and Blessings to you all.

No. I am just saying the program is immoral, but I think you should get what you paid into social security, though most under 50 probably won't. I am 37, have been paying into social security for over 20 years and think I should get my share. But the reality is that it is a Ponsi scheme, it is insolvent, and immoral as you do not have a choice to opt in or opt out. As I said, a wise leader would get the country off slowly but we will not get anywhere as a society until we realize we do not need leaders.

Understood. I think the program would have been ok if it had been left intact but a certain pres. decided to use the funds for general purposes...thus the ponzi scheme.
The "Beast" as I see it is the military ind. comp. Why should the American taxpayer be the ones to support such a travesty? But I am with you..we don't need to be governed!

[risveglio]

Prove to us that your statement of it being insolvent holds facts. Your opt in and opt out statement is not quite right either, can you explain this to us.

Peace!

I can't prove the insolvency statement other than looking at the numbers showing the number of retiring baby boomers compared to the number either voluntarily opting out of the system by working 'under the table' or unable to get work.

As for my statement about opting out, how is that not right? Other than not working or 'breaking the law' and working off the books how can I opt out of Social Security? I understand the mindset though. The use of the threat of violence is fine as long as it is not directed at me and it is used for just causes. I understand the mindset, but I don't agree with it, find it rather disingenuous and a bit evil.

[spiritguide]

I can't prove the insolvency statement other than looking at the numbers showing the number of retiring baby boomers compared to the number either voluntarily opting out of the system by working 'under the table' or unable to get work.

As for my statement about opting out, how is that not right? Other than not working or 'breaking the law' and working off the books how can I opt out of Social Security? I understand the mindset though. The use of the threat of violence is fine as long as it is not directed at me and it is used for just causes. I understand the mindset, but I don't agree with it, find it rather disingenuous and a bit evil.

Ask any government workers how they don't pay social security or any contrator / self employed why they don't. The answer is just one way to opt in or opt out. As for proof of insolvency none has been shown that can satisfy the truth test.

Peace!

[risveglio]

Ask any government workers how they don't pay social security or any contrator / self employed why they don't. The answer is just one way to opt in or opt out. As for proof of insolvency none has been shown that can satisfy the truth test.

Peace!

I am not a government worker or a contractor, can I opt out? I think there is more evidence of insolvency than proof that it is solvent. Why don't you prove to us that it is solvent? Obviously you have no problems with the threat of violence though.

[spiritguide]

I am not a government worker or a contractor, can I opt out? I think there is more evidence of insolvency than proof that it is solvent. Why don't you prove to us that it is solvent? Obviously you have no problems with the threat of violence though.

Not my statement to prove. Your assumption of my stance on the threat of violence is just that. Sorry to have inquired to find logic and straying from thread subject of the OP.

Peace!

[risveglio]

Not my statement to prove. Your assumption of my stance on the threat of violence is just that. Sorry to have inquired to find logic and straying from thread subject of the OP.

Peace!

Well, I love the tactic but lets put the insolvency aside for a second. On social security, do you agree it is immoral?

Also, why do we skip my question about opting out?

Now back to insolvency. To me, this sounds like a severe problem.

In 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be 2.

So to keep the "program" going, the amount of money stolen from each new victim keeps increasing: In 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2% of his salary. In 1950, 2 percent; Today, 12 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent.

[ThePythonicCow]

Insolvency can mean a couple of things.

It can mean that one's debts exceed one's assets. Despite appearances, I don't think that applies very well to Social Security, because despite appearances, it is not a savings plan with assets, but rather a cash flow plan, with income from current workers and payments to retired workers.

Insolvency can instead mean that one has a cash flow problem, with ongoing payments exceeding ongoing income. Social Security definitely will have that problem, increasingly so, over the coming years. When I was working, there were perhaps seven workers paying for one retiree's benefits, and what's more, that retiree probably worked through the Great Depression and was able to adapt to a low cost life style. Soon we will be seeing two workers per one retiree, and what's more some of those retiree's, such as myself, made good money over the years and don't expect to live off canned dog food. I tell my son he'd better work really hard and earn good money, so he can afford to pay half of my Social Security check. My son shakes his head in dismay and doesn't know what to say in return <grin>.

[TargeT]

I make a fairly decent income, but my SS contributions wouldn't support anyone.

my OASDI (Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance; AKA social security) contributions are 400$ a month from one of my jobs, 80 from the other.

at a 2:1 ratio that's around $1,000 a month or 12,000 a year to live on.... I don't even think you could do that with cat food.

[spiritguide]

From Wikipedia.....

Claim that it is a Ponzi scheme[edit]

See also: Criticism of Social Security as a pyramid or Ponzi scheme

Critics have drawn parallels between Social Security and Ponzi schemes,[96][97][98] e.g.:
...the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those "early investors" who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.
As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.

As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide.[99]
—Michael Tanner
One criticism of the analogy is that while Ponzi schemes and Social Security have similar structures (in particular, a sustainability problem when the number of new people paying in is declining), they have different transparencies. In the case of a Ponzi scheme, the fact that there is no return-generating mechanism other than contributions from new entrants is obscured[100] whereas Social Security payouts have always been openly underwritten by incoming tax revenue and the interest on the Treasury bonds held by or for the Social Security system.[101] The sudden loss of confidence resulting in a collapse of a conventional Ponzi scheme when the scheme's true nature is revealed is unlikely to occur in the case of the Social Security system. Private sector Ponzi schemes are also vulnerable to collapse because they cannot compel new entrants, whereas participation in the Social Security program is a condition for joining the U.S. labor force. In connection with these and other issues, Robert E. Wright calls Social Security a "quasi" pyramid scheme in his book, Fubarnomics

Wages not subject to tax[edit]

Workers are not required to pay Social Security taxes on wages from certain types of work:[65]
Wages received by certain state or local government workers participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
Net annual earnings from self-employment of less than $400.
Wages received for service as an election worker, if less than $1,400 a year (in 2008).
Wages received for working as a household employee, if less than $1,700 per year (in 2009–2010).
Wages received by college students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers. Eliminated starting January 2011.
Earnings received for serving as a minister (or for similar religious service) if the person has a conscientious objection to public insurance because of personal religious considerations.

Claim that it discriminates against the poor and the middle class[edit]

Critics, such as libertarian Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman, say that Social Security redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy.[68][69] Workers must pay 12.4 percent, including a 6.2 percent employer contribution, on their wages below the Social Security Wage Base ($110,100 in 2012), but no tax on income in excess of this amount.[15][70] Therefore, high earners pay a lower percentage of their total income because of the income caps; because of this, payroll taxes are often viewed as being regressive. Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life expectancies and thus may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer period than poorer taxpayers.[71] A single individual who dies before age 62, who is more likely to be poor, receives no retirement benefits despite his years of paying Social Security tax. On the other hand, an individual who lives to age 100, who is more likely to be wealthy, is guaranteed payments that are more than he paid into the system.[72] An NBER volume edited by Martin Feldstein and Jeffrey Liebman called The Distributional Aspects of Social Security points out that members of racial minorities with lower than average life expectancies and lower than average rates of marriage may also suffer from the program on average.

Supporters of Social Security say that despite its regressive tax formula, Social Security benefits are calculated using a progressive benefit formula that replaces a much higher percentage of low-income workers' pre-retirement income than that of higher-income workers (although these low-income workers pay a higher percentage of their pre-retirement income).[73] They also point to numerous studies that show that, relative to high-income workers, Social Security disability and survivor benefits paid on behalf of low-income workers more than offset any retirement benefits that may be lost because of shorter life expectancy, but this offset requires an individual to be disabled.[74][75][76] Other research asserts that survivor benefits, allegedly an offset, actually exacerbate the problem because survivor benefits are denied to single individuals, including widow(er)s married less than nine months (except in certain situations),[77] divorced widow(er)s married less than 10 years,[78] and co-habiting or same-sex couples, unless they are legally married in their state of residence.[79][80][81][82][83] Unmarried individuals tend to be less wealthy and minorities.

link... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Research complete.

[risveglio]

From Wikipedia.....

Research complete.

That's Hilarious

[risveglio]

I guess I am not going to get an explanation on how someone could opt out other than by working for the government or not making enough money.

As for Social Security being a Ponzi scheme, I agree with Ecoonomist Robert Murphy. That is not fair to Charles Ponzi.


The "Ponzi scheme" accusation is accurate, in the context of modern political debates. However, there is a very important sense in which it is unfair — unfair to Charles Ponzi.

It's true that Ponzi engaged in fraud; his victims never would have "invested" with him, had he accurately explained the business model. Libertarians therefore agree with everybody else that Charles Ponzi was a criminal and would have to face legal consequences in any just legal order.

However, so far as we know Ponzi never threatened anybody. He didn't tell struggling young workers, "Give me 15 percent of your paycheck every week, so that I can make you a fantastic return — or else I'll send goons to kidnap you."

In this respect, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme after all. It's more analogous to mobsters shaking down people for protection money, because otherwise "bad things could happen.

http://mises.org/daily/5658

[seeker/reader]

---------------

[risveglio]

From the article, in the next 10 years, federal spending will increase from $3.6T to $6T. That's not austerity.