Beating Social Security

[NYcarbineer]

1 - there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - everyone would. Unless you are willing to tell retirees to pound sand this isn't an option.
2 and 3 - is not relevant since the market isn't guaranteed either.

"...there is no way to pay existing beneficiaries if you allow people to opt-out - ..."
Same way it is being done currently.

Out of the general fund

The general fund owes the SS trust fund over 2 trillion dollars. That's a legitimate US government debt.

Yeah the government "borrows" money from itself for a slush fund

If I ran a private pension fund like that I'd be thrown in jail and you'd be the first to cheer yet you're just fine with the government doing it

I am not fine with Social Security. It is an economic train wreck. What I find interesting is that few of its critics understand the depth of the problem. Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. It is structurally closer to check kiting where every generation serves as a new bank. The latter is a much more serious problem. There is almost some skin in the Ponzi scheme. The only thing in check kiting is blank checks.

The Trust Fund balance has increased every year for decades

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

Clearly you have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

The taxing ability is only in support of the enumerated powers.

There are implied powers in the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

"Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them."

Well...perhaps it's time for you to get around to using your own head instead of being led.

The Constitution is written in English, and, even though it is not my first language,I can read it well enough to determine that there is no authority in it for the government to issue insurance.

You don't have to believe me.....read article 1, section 8 for yourself.

Are you disputing that Congress has the power to tax?

Are you disputing that Congress has the right to provide for the General Welfare?

Are you disputing the right of the Supreme Court to determine constitutionality?

Your better case in the 5th Amendment's takings clause "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Payroll taxes are not like other taxes which provide pass through benefits that can't really be measured. SS takes money and bases benefits on that revenue. You are not getting just compensation.

Clearly you have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

The taxing ability is only in support of the enumerated powers.

Which takes me to two or three...

Is is that Congress does not have the right to provide for the General Welfare, or are you disputing the Supreme Courts right to determine constitutionality.

Next lesson:

[Liberal judicial activism] "seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country. "
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

The People have the right to the judges their elected representatives put on the Court.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Going strong ?

I think the only thing that is strong is whatever it is that you are drinking.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hard to believe after 80 years, FDRs gift to elderly America is still going strong

One of his many, many accomplishments

Ironic isn't it that FDR vigorously opposed what SS has become. This is a wonderful piece that might give you some actual history.

Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?

FDR would be thrilled with elderly Americans being taken care of

He would also support Obamacare

I realize you have every right to show people what an idiot you are.

That does not mean you have to exercise it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No they are opting out of piss poor benefits for a more secure retirement

Just so I understand your idea of opting-out. They still have to pay, but they just don't get any benefits. Just changing the name of the tax doesn't mean that you aren't having to pay for the system.

Let's check your understanding.

Do you believe in liberty?

How about the United States Constitution?

I believe in liberty, but I have to buy auto insurance in order to own a car in my state. It may not be a good transaction but the government tells you all sorts of things that you have to do. Social Security isn't new, and the 9 people who get paid to judge constitutionality say that it is. Take-up the argument with them.

You can own a car without insuring it

You have to insure it in order to drive on public roads and you only have to have enough coverage to cover any damage you might do to public property

That has nothing to do with retirement savings and the fact that SS subjects people to huge opportunity costs and leaves them poorer than they should be

You must not live in GA. You have to insure a car that is completely immobile in GA. It can be parked on private property with no trespassing signs, and it is required to be insured. You don't have to insure it, but you can break any law.

Bullshit. If I own a track-only race car, I do NOT have to insure it. If I own a farm truck that never leaves my property, I do NOT have to insure it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. What have we learned?

The Roosevelt government ignored the Constitution and provided federal 'insurance,' Social Security. The original plan has created enormous debt, now, and into the future. This thread provided a hypothetical plan that would result in thrice the benefits, and an actual, Alternative Plan that gives the citizen more control of his own money.

And, it was noted that the Ponzi Scheme called Social Security is not legally binding on the government....

....as it is, they have stolen all the funds, anyway.



So what the heck is wrong with infantilizing the citizenry, making nice to 'em "from cradle to grave"?

A few things.

a. “Previous generations crossed the frozen Bering Straits, rounded the Cape of Good Hope, discovered the New World, traveled the Oregon Trail, climbed Mount Everest.” The Greatest Generation included teenage boys who went off to liberate Europe, island-hp through the Pacific, and defeat the Japanese Empire…So far, though, the great pioneering move of Generation Me is to move back home to live in mom’s basement. Sykes, “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School,” p. 79.


b.The Welfare State inhibits the maturation of youth into responsible adults. It infantilizes its citizens. In earlier times, the view of males was to earn a living and use same to support a wife and family.

Obama: "if you're a young adult, you can stay on your parent's health insurance policy until you are 26." So much for the view of being independent at the age of 21. Bet there would be applause if he had announced 'until 36!' This is what the Liberal Welfare State encourages: dependence.
So....where are all the men? Ask the Liberals what happened to them.


Grow the heck up.
Plan for your own contingencies, make mature and responsible decision and choices. Get Liberalism out of our government.


Grow the heck up.