Our Social Security Blind Spots

[Griff]

On the right, it is seen as a simple actuary problem. Simply raise the retirement age and freeze benefits. This ignores that working class people don't have the health to work to seventy and whatever savings are there have been devalued by deficit spending. The "answer" from the right is playing the markets, which will have losers.

On the left, people pretend that we've built up reserves in a "lock box". This is imaginary. That money was "invested" in government debt (read spent) and will have to be re-paid out of other taxes.

What other lies are we telling ourselves that prevent saving SS?

[Spexxvet]

"My pension, 401(k), and savings will be enough. Besides, I'm gonna be rich, either by pulling myself up by my bootstraps or hitting Powerball. I won't "need" SS, but I'll take it anyway"

"Wealthy people should get SS even though they don't need it"

[DanaC]

The other thing to consider is that, particularly amongst the working class and probably the lower middle class too, those retired SS claimants are often providing free childcare to grandchildren to allow their adult children to work, and/or taking on much of the burden of care for other elderly people, either partners or parents.

They're also, certainly in the UK and I suspect in the US too, the mainstay of social volunteering, through churches and charities.

Without that army of unpaid volunteers a lot of parents would struggle to work with young children, thereby becoming less economically active, and a lot of infirm elderly citizens would need a lot more (very expensive) social care. Large numbers of charity missions would be compromised and essential support such as soup kitchens and food banks, thrift stores and community centres would be threatened.

Holding off on SS for a few extra years would save the government a chunk of cash. But the wider economic implications in terms of their labour from which the nation currently benefits at a very low cost, could be more far reaching than we might expect.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That "Lock Box" was transferred to the general fund so we could piss it away on Vietnam. That way we could have "guns and butter".

But the whole question is moot. I mean really, when you reach that age you're living on dividends from your portfolio, and trying to figure out how to avoid taxes while setting up trust-funds for your heirs, so that SS pittance won't make any difference. Why should we have to worry about the help that's no longer of use to us.

[Stormieweather]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That "Lock Box" was transferred to the general fund so we could piss it away on Vietnam. That way we could have "guns and butter".

But the whole question is moot. I mean really, when you reach that age you're living on dividends from your portfolio, and trying to figure out how to avoid taxes while setting up trust-funds for your heirs, so that SS pittance won't make any difference. Why should we have to worry about the help that's no longer of use to us.

Well you just speak for yourself, mr richy rich. Some of us will have to live on that "pittance".

[IamSam]

If you want to call it "living."

[ZenGum]

I remember reading PJ O'Rourke on this, writing in the early 90s.

Soc Sec skims some money, and "saves" it.

They can't put it in banks or, heaven forbid, invest it in the stock market. The only thing they're allowed to do with it is buy government bonds.

So the money ends up with the federal government, and the only legal thing they can do, it seems, is spend the bejesus out of it. Which they do.

So, come 2025 or so (or a lot sooner!) more retirees means money going out of soc sec exceeds money coming in, and they hit up treasury to pay back a bunch of those bonds.

Except, by that time, treasury is broke.

Good luck when that happens.

Don't bother getting partisan on this one, folks, this problem has been simmering away for more than 30 years, neither side has done much.



Oh, here in our hippy-fascist social utopia, wages and salaries include a compulsory superannuation contribution (at least 9%) which is deposited in a managed fund and then either (a) wisely and profitably invested in the stock market, (b) nibbled away at by admin fees and/or (c) blown on wild gambling on long-shot penny-dreadful mining stocks. Mostly (a), I hope.

This is in addition to (and meant to decrease reliance on) the age pension.

[IamSam]

I figure to solve the entire social security problem with cigarettes and a family history of cancer.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Well you just speak for yourself, mr richy rich. Some of us will have to live on that "pittance".

Well don't blame me if you've pissed away your trust fund.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by IamSam

I figure to solve the entire social security problem with cigarettes and a family history of cancer.

I have a similar plan: personal history of cancer combined with inability to pay for visits to my oncologist for blood levels and mammos (it's 250.00 a pop to see her for three minutes and take my blood - which my 'insurance' pays about 25.00 of) so if it comes back it'll kill me ------ also binge drinking which I can't seem to stop doing, sedentary lifestyle and a really shitty attitude.

The kids are better off without me. I'm a drag on society as I work part time only and off an annuity.

[DanaC]

You aren't a drag on society, you are society.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You aren't a drag on society, you are society.

And society sucks.


sometimes, in my darkest hour, I think that man with the hoodie and the dark glasses had kind of a good idea.

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by DanaC

You aren't a drag on society, you are society.

Them's fighting words, stranger!

I hate today's society in America. It's made up of ignorant fools, Bushmaster's slung over their shoulders, sullenly slouching off to Bethlehem.

I want no part of it.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I mean really, when you reach that age you're living on dividends from your portfolio, and trying to figure out how to avoid taxes while setting up trust-funds for your heirs, so that SS pittance won't make any difference.

I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'm nearly 30 years behind the curve. I'd better go portfolio shopping tomorrow.

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Oh, here in our hippy-fascist social utopia, wages and salaries include a compulsory superannuation contribution (at least 9%) which is deposited in a managed fund and then either (a) wisely and profitably invested in the stock market, (b) nibbled away at by admin fees and/or (c) blown on wild gambling on long-shot penny-dreadful mining stocks. Mostly (a), I hope.

This is in addition to (and meant to decrease reliance on) the age pension.

Yes but you're being paid in Australian Wallabies. That's like comparing Centigrade to Celsius. How many Wallabies the the Dollar? Then we convert that to Fahrenheit and then you see our country is actually funding your retirement.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Yes but you're being paid in Australian Wallabies. That's like comparing Centigrade to Celsius. How many Wallabies the the Dollar?

When we converted from pounds, shillings and pence (late 60s) to decimal currency, there was a serious move to have 100 Joeys to the Kangaroo. Could you imagine???

You buy banana! 50 Joeys! Okay, 40 Joeys! 35?

Then we convert that to Fahrenheit and then you see our country is actually funding your retirement.

Wait, you're Chinese?