Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Some people can't contribute, for whatever reason. What happens to them?

In our system they do not collect. In order to collect SS old age payments one must pay into the system for 10 years or be married to some who paid in for 10 years at the time of his/her death.

As a caveat, that leaves out those who collect SS benefits because their parent(s) died and those who get SS disability (for too many reasons to list).

danivon wrote:It all reminds me of that fable about the ant and the grasshopper.

We will always have people who rely on others to survive. the question I guess is do we give freely, encourage them (or mandate them) to contribute when they are able, and accept that some people will be getting more out than they put in over their lifetimes...

Or what?

I have my opinion, and would love to hear yours.

I give freely to those who I choose. I do not support the mandated savings, and expect people to act responsibly or depend on other private entities who choose to support them.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

danivon wrote:Some people can't contribute, for whatever reason. What happens to them?

In our system they do not collect. In order to collect SS old age payments one must pay into the system for 10 years or be married to some who paid in for 10 years at the time of his/her death.

But Brad said that they get the same as everyone else! Perhaps he is wrong? Perhaps in the light of this misapprehension, Brad might like to reconsider his position?

RJ - on that survey, was the $ earnings based on a simple translation of Euros/GBP/rubles to dollars? Only purchasing power and income deciles may vary wildly between nations.

The Russian figures are also noted to be out because of high employer contributions to social security (34%!). So perhaps variations in that would also mean that these comparisons are not necessarily like-for-like.

Other than that it's basically saying that people who live in high-taxation countries pay more tax. Which is tautologous. A more interesting comparison would be the tax burden per decile compared to average income per decile.

bbauska wrote:RJ,
If any employee/employer put money into a system for a person, should they get that exact amount back? That is my question? Whether it be Medicare, Social Security, SSI, or otherwise. If an employee/employer is forced to contribute, why is there someone else getting those funds? I can understand "Mandated savings". I cannot understand paying for someone now, when I will be receiving later. That is why people regard this as a Ponzi scheme.

I'd like to see someone disprove the Ponzi scheme allegation. We pay taxes today so that someone who worked in the past can get their benefit. They paid so that someone before them could get the benefit--and on and on it goes. What did the first beneficiaries put in? Where did the start up money come from?

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-p ... heme/2595/

Here you go steve.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd like to see someone disprove the Ponzi scheme allegation. We pay taxes today so that someone who worked in the past can get their benefit. They paid so that someone before them could get the benefit--and on and on it goes. What did the first beneficiaries put in? Where did the start up money come from?

Where did the money to fight the Revolutionary War come from?

Usually there was a period at the start of such welfare schemes where benefits were not paid out at the top rate, and so the initial income would likely have exceeded initial outgoings.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd like to see someone disprove the Ponzi scheme allegation. We pay taxes today so that someone who worked in the past can get their benefit. They paid so that someone before them could get the benefit--and on and on it goes. What did the first beneficiaries put in? Where did the start up money come from?

Where did the money to fight the Revolutionary War come from?

Um, so fighting a war is like an entitlement? I mean, really, how is this applicable and not just a rabbit trail?

rickyp wrote:http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retirement-planning/blog/money-life/is-social-security-a-ponzi-scheme/2595/

Here you go steve.

Actually, he states it IS a Ponzi scheme:

What Social Security really is, is the formalizing of the long-revered, ancient tradition of supporting elders who are less able to fend for themselves. Ancient tribes and clans often provided food and shelter to older members who could no longer hunt or gather food. And I’d be willing to bet that at the time, the younger tribe members didn’t keep track of the amount of food or housing they gave to their elders with the expectation that they would eventually receive similar amounts. They did it simply because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Senator Russell Long, a lifelong supporter of Social Security, explained it this way: Social Security is nothing more than a promise to a group of people that their children will be taxed for that group’s benefit.

He tries to define the difference:

A Ponzi scheme is a purposeful investment swindle in which early investors are paid off with money put up by later investors in order to encourage more investors.

Oh, so if gullible investors are swindled, it's a Ponzi scheme, but if the government ORDERS it, and the term "investors" is not applied, it's not?

Brilliant.

From this moron's article, linked in your link, "3 Myths About Social Security":

Myth #3: Congress has raided the Social Security trust fund.

The use of the word “raid” implies that greedy politicians are inappropriately grabbing money from the Social Security fund to pay for their favorite pork projects. In fact, the Social Security trust fund is invested in special U.S. Treasury bonds, which are used to fund the general operations of the federal government. There is a legal mechanism and obligation to pay back the interest and principal on these bonds, just like any other U.S. Treasury bond.

Oh, okay, so it wasn't "raided." Right. They just took out the money and replaced it with promises to pay it back.



Back to google for you!

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd like to see someone disprove the Ponzi scheme allegation. We pay taxes today so that someone who worked in the past can get their benefit. They paid so that someone before them could get the benefit--and on and on it goes. What did the first beneficiaries put in? Where did the start up money come from?

Where did the money to fight the Revolutionary War come from?

Um, so fighting a war is like an entitlement? I mean, really, how is this applicable and not just a rabbit trail?

Nope, founding a nation is an entitlement. It's applicable because it's about how governments pay for stuff, whatever that stuff is.

danivon wrote:Nope, founding a nation is an entitlement.

Based on what definition? I'm sure you have a source?

Definition of ENTITLEMENT
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
See entitlement defined for English-language learners »
Examples of ENTITLEMENT

my entitlement to a refund
celebrities who have an arrogant sense of entitlement
entitlements such as medical aid for the elderly and poor

Where exactly do you squeeze "founding a nation" into that?

The colonists of the Americas believed that they were deserving or entitled to certain privileges that the British Crown did not believe that they were entitled to. So they fought a war to create a state that would enshrine those entitlements into rights. They believed they were entitled to rebel.

Just because you have proven you can read a dictionary, doesn't prove you understood it.

But even so, the point was, as I repeat, that just because a project or policy is not self-funding from day one does not mean that it's a bad idea. Sometimes there's a reason to put the costs in.

You didn't respond to my point about a run-in period either. I suspect you are veering off for some reason...

bbauska wrote:RJ,
If any employee/employer put money into a system for a person, should they get that exact amount back? That is my question? Whether it be Medicare, Social Security, SSI, or otherwise. If an employee/employer is forced to contribute, why is there someone else getting those funds? I can understand "Mandated savings". I cannot understand paying for someone now, when I will be receiving later. That is why people regard this as a Ponzi scheme.

Going back to the little old Polish lady...

She comes to America at age 52, naturalizes (GOOD FOR HER!), and begins to pay into the SS program. She makes 4500/year for 10 years, retires at 62, and gets how much back? Considering she will probably live to 85 (a conservative estimate, btw), does she get more or less than she paid in?

She probably gets back more ... it is skewed to help lower income people.

When social security was created there was massive poverty amongst the elderly. There was also an expectation that most of them would die before age 65. So, the focus wasn't on each individual getting out what you get in. The focus was on those who kept living to get some money and not be forced into poverty including hunger, homelessness, and ill health. Of course all that has changed. However, government programs just keep going. The medicare economics and demographics are 10X worse.

I'm comfortable with some national response that includes limited social and medical insurance for those who are less fortunate. I don't know how much is right, but I do know that many good hard working Americans are totally dependent on it and not because they are lazy. Some people have less capacity, and some have no family, and some have addictions, and some have never had a break in their lives. For the most part, those of us posting on these sites are very fortunate. The issue for me is not primarily philosophical. For me the issue is that we can't spend this much beyond our means and survive as a Republic.

deleted -- too personal

danivon wrote:The colonists of the Americas believed that they were deserving or entitled to certain privileges that the British Crown did not believe that they were entitled to. So they fought a war to create a state that would enshrine those entitlements into rights. They believed they were entitled to rebel.

Just because you have proven you can type a word, doesn't prove you understood it. In fact, the above paragraph proves you don't. Believing you have a God-given right is not the same as an "entitlement" in any sense of the word in which this discussion has touched.

But even so, the point was, as I repeat, that just because a project or policy is not self-funding from day one does not mean that it's a bad idea. Sometimes there's a reason to put the costs in.

But, this is one that was doomed to fail because it was based on the flawed assumption that there would always be enough workers to fund retirees. It was based on flawed life-expectancy projections, flawed population growth projections, and on the flawed idea that an entitlement program would not become a leaky sieve (an excuse to dole out money to many who never contributed).

You didn't respond to my point about a run-in period either. I suspect you are veering off for some reason...

Meh. This from a guy who believes the American Revolution is the equivalent in some way to Social Security.

Whatever.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:RJ,
If any employee/employer put money into a system for a person, should they get that exact amount back? That is my question? Whether it be Medicare, Social Security, SSI, or otherwise. If an employee/employer is forced to contribute, why is there someone else getting those funds? I can understand "Mandated savings". I cannot understand paying for someone now, when I will be receiving later. That is why people regard this as a Ponzi scheme.

Going back to the little old Polish lady...

She comes to America at age 52, naturalizes (GOOD FOR HER!), and begins to pay into the SS program. She makes 4500/year for 10 years, retires at 62, and gets how much back? Considering she will probably live to 85 (a conservative estimate, btw), does she get more or less than she paid in?

She probably gets back more ... it is skewed to help lower income people.

When social security was created there was massive poverty amongst the elderly. There was also an expectation that most of them would die before age 65. So, the focus wasn't on each individual getting out what you get in. The focus was on those who kept living to get some money and not be forced into poverty including hunger, homelessness, and ill health. Of course all that has changed. However, government programs just keep going. The medicare economics and demographics are 10X worse.

I'm comfortable with some national response that includes limited social and medical insurance for those who are less fortunate. I don't know how much is right, but I do know that many good hard working Americans are totally dependent on it and not because they are lazy. Some people have less capacity, and some have no family, and some have addictions, and some have never had a break in their lives. For the most part, those of us posting on these sites are very fortunate. The issue for me is not primarily philosophical. For me the issue is that we can't spend this much beyond our means and survive as a Republic.

That is my point exactly. Some people get more, some get less. If you have a specific "lockbox" (for want of a better term) tied to the person, that is the kind of program I would support. The demographics have certainly changed, and so must the program.

I am all for people helping others when it comes to the assistance they need. That is it, though. It is people, not a government, helping others.