Mike Lee blasts Social Security
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
Most definitely a Ponzi scheme. SS was a good idea, but designed incorrectly from the beginning.
it always pisses me off when they refer to it as an "entitlement"
Yeah, I think a lot of people don’t properly understand what that word means.
I think they mistake it for a transfer program - or welfare or something along those lines. So they bristle at it being used to describe Social Security, since we pay a payroll tax to fund it.
It is a transfer program, there is no mistake. Working age people pay a tax and the funds are transferred to retirees.
Just because people are ignorant of how the program operates.... Or the dictionary definitions of the English language, doesn't change reality.
Well it is..... entitlement, to me, means that I have a right to it.
I think most people think of it the other way and that is being inherently deserving of something just because I think that I am....i.e. a kid thinks they are entitled to have an iPhone.
I think of this definition...
" It can describe a belief that one deserves certain privileges without necessarily earning them."
The average Joe thinks of ss as an entitlement bc “it’s his money he paid in.” They don’t view it like food stamps. In truth they are both entitlements but that’s not how it’s perceived.
Social Security is one of the worse government programs created. It's a regressive tax that takes from productive members of societies and gives to less productive...aka enslavement. Or as socialist like to say, it's a tax and wealth transfer.
Last edited:
1
a
: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b
: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
3
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
the state or condition of being entitled : right; a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract; belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
"dammit jim, i'm a doctor not an english major"1
a
: the state or condition of being entitled : right
b
: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
3
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group
also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
Definition of ENTITLEMENT
the state or condition of being entitled : right; a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract; belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges… See the full definition
quit trying to confuse me
So that's the reason you can't write so a person can read it! 🤣
Last edited:
I agree with that but I don't think the average Joe thinks of it an entitlement because they view an entitlement as something like food stamps.
ManyUOTE="NPT, post: 4219566, member: 410"]
Well it is..... entitlement, to me, means that I have a right to it.
I think most people think of it the other way and that is being inherently deserving of something just because I think that I am....i.e. a kid thinks they are entitled to have an iPhone.
[/QUOTE]
Someone who planned his finances for retirement, or hired a financial planner would factor in the amount which his Social Security account was calculated to provide. Thus, it could be considered an entitlement in that the contributions were anticipated to provide a certain amount of income.
Unfortunately judging from the number of retirees in America who rely to a large extent on Social Secuity for their retirement income this "entitlement" is required to at least survive in what has been called the Golden Years.
If we didn't have Social Security would more Americans take it upon themselves to save and invest? In other words, too many of us rely too much on Social Security to our own long term detriment.
Another factor to consider is what would our economy look like if we personally saved and invested more for our retirement and spent less throughout our working years?
Well it is..... entitlement, to me, means that I have a right to it.
I think most people think of it the other way and that is being inherently deserving of something just because I think that I am....i.e. a kid thinks they are entitled to have an iPhone.
[/QUOTE]
Someone who planned his finances for retirement, or hired a financial planner would factor in the amount which his Social Security account was calculated to provide. Thus, it could be considered an entitlement in that the contributions were anticipated to provide a certain amount of income.
Unfortunately judging from the number of retirees in America who rely to a large extent on Social Secuity for their retirement income this "entitlement" is required to at least survive in what has been called the Golden Years.
If we didn't have Social Security would more Americans take it upon themselves to save and invest? In other words, too many of us rely too much on Social Security to our own long term detriment.
Another factor to consider is what would our economy look like if we personally saved and invested more for our retirement and spent less throughout our working years?
I don’t get the impression (from these comments, anyway) that Sen. Lee hates Social Security so much as takes issue with certain aspects of its formation.
Let’s face it: there are serious flaws with any pension (public or private) that doesn’t have the capacity to sustain itself.
Personally, I’m just fine with having a compulsory public pension program. But acknowledging its flaws is not the same thing as hating it or wanting it destroyed or anything like that.
Nobody poses a bigger threat to Social Security than those who insist it be left alone. Left alone, it will implode in about a decade.
It is the old Titanic problem, the sooner you make a course correction the less of a correction it needs to be. We are at the point where hard to starboard isn't going to clear the looming disaster. People 20 years ago could have solved this with relatively small changes. But we are stuck with half of Congress saying, "Not a penny in new taxes" and half with, "Not a penny less in benefits" so here we are.
The administrators I believe said a 13% cut or a 2% increase in tax would stabilize the program. Raise the age, cut a little, raise the tax a little, and lift the maximum cap a little. The exact numbers someone would need to calculate. I know it breaks the social security bond, but freezing CoL increases for higher-end recipients would be a way of getting some of the cut. It isn't sensible to cut people already eating cat food.
Of course, it is about to get a little worse. I am NOT saying this to argue against any Trump plan, but in 2022 undocumented workers paid $25 billion into Social Security. They are not eligible to ever get that back, so it is pure "profit" and will go away. Any new plan will have to account for that dropping. $25 billion isn't a huge amount compared to all that comes in, but it still isn't chicken feed either.
Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants
Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Providing access to work authorization for undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions both because their wages would rise and because their rates of tax compliance would increase.
itep.org
When pinned down politicians admit something should be done to sustain Social Security, but, of course, do nothing about it.
The longer they wait, the harder the problem is to resolve. Our system of governing tends to have our politicians not looking beyond the next election.
As for We the People, the more active voters tend to focus on finding fault with the other party while ignoring the faults of the system such as the lack of looking long term.
Yep. And we've known it was coming since the 90s. So irresponsible.
I will go to my grave saying that we missed a golden opportunity to not only shore up its finances, but add a savings component to it, in 2005. It would be interesting to run some numbers to estimate where everything would stand today had lawmakers done that.
I don't think anybody's ever had designs on paring benefits for people on the low end of the income scale. But any hike in the retirement age probably has to be across the board.
The quiet bipartisan working group has a number of things on the table. One of them is the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund -- which would be a step in the right direction. I'd certainly like to see equity in that done on an individual basis, but I'd be surprised if that's the case...at least out of the gate.
Singapore did that with their SWF, and it's been a boon for their retirees.
I don't know how far Trump will get with mass deportations. But I feel safe in guessing that it will end up being a lot fewer of them than the proponents hope to see. I view that similarly to how I view Trump's tariffs ploy: more as a means of creating leverage to get other things done than as a policy in and of itself.
We'll see how it plays out.
Like the Saudi’s. It owns four teams in the Saudi league. Done properly we could have relegation, have the sovereign wealth fund own half a dozen teams, and bring in top players
I have been reading Nudged (the second version). It is a really good book by two libertarian economists. They spend a lot of time on Sweden's system because it went into effect in 2000 so there is a lot of data on their point (how default choices work). I like the sound of Sweden's plan. 18.5% tax, 16% into basically Social Security and 2.5 into an investment plan.
Of course their point overall is that people really don't know what they are doing, so the default plan needs to be carefully considered. There were 500 plans available, and about 40% stuck with the default. Of the remainder, the largest had about 4%. It had a great "last 5 year" run, which is why people chose it. But it was very expensive. And is it turns out, the great 5 year run ended the following year. Three years later it was WAY down.
Or there was another fund that turned out to be used fraudulently by the corporation. Both when a newspaper discovered it and published it, then when the accountant that investigated determined it was being fraudulently managed, almost no one left the fund. People set and forget.
I like the idea of part of the fund going into plans. Even after all the examples they have of issues, and they also support the idea. Their point again is the importance of a good default. You don't want the default to be the high-cost plan, or the fraud plan, or the put-it-all-on black 18 plan. None of it matters to me directly, even if passed today I won't be part of any such plan. But overall I think it sounds good.
LOL...well, not really what I had in mind.
But something like Temasek Holdings -- which I guess technically isn't an SWF, but a state-owned investment manager -- seems like it could be an effective way to enhance returns in a measured and responsible way. It would make SS more similar to other defined-benefit pensions (public or private) in terms of its investment holdings.
The key thing is to seek better returns. They should've done this with SSTF assets a long time ago, really. It would've helped stave off the coming depletion.
If this is the book I'm thinking of, one of the authors is Cass Sunstein -- who is most certainly not a libertarian.
I've never read it. But I've heard Sunstein and his co-author (Richard Thaler) discuss it. And I thought they had some intriguing and compelling arguments about various things. One thing I'll say about Sunstein: among the intellectual left, he's always seemed more interested in (a) calling failed solutions the failures that they are, (b) finding workable solutions to problems, and (c) involving and engaging opinions different than his own in doing so.
I remember reading something he wrote discussing the concept of dispersed knowledge -- and while he stopped short of endorsing the idea he did, by George, seem to grasp what it was and why he was intrigued by it. In today's world, I'd call that progress.
BTW, speaking of economist Richard Thaler, he once co-authored a piece about the NFL draft that has apparently turned out to be pretty influential among General Managers and other front-office leaders in the NFL.
The upshot of their conclusion was that NFL teams often place too much value on the top draft picks.
If anybody is a huge NFL fan and extremely bored someday, here's a link to it.
The upshot of their conclusion was that NFL teams often place too much value on the top draft picks.
If anybody is a huge NFL fan and extremely bored someday, here's a link to it.
It is the old Titanic problem, the sooner you make a course correction the less of a correction it needs to be. We are at the point where hard to starboard isn't going to clear the looming disaster. People 20 years ago could have solved this with relatively small changes. But we are stuck with half of Congress saying, "Not a penny in new taxes" and half with, "Not a penny less in benefits" so here we are.
The administrators I believe said a 13% cut or a 2% increase in tax would stabilize the program. Raise the age, cut a little, raise the tax a little, and lift the maximum cap a little. The exact numbers someone would need to calculate. I know it breaks the social security bond, but freezing CoL increases for higher-end recipients would be a way of getting some of the cut. It isn't sensible to cut people already eating cat food.
Of course, it is about to get a little worse. I am NOT saying this to argue against any Trump plan, but in 2022 undocumented workers paid $25 billion into Social Security. They are not eligible to ever get that back, so it is pure "profit" and will go away. Any new plan will have to account for that dropping. $25 billion isn't a huge amount compared to all that comes in, but it still isn't chicken feed either.
Tax Payments by Undocumented Immigrants
Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022. Providing access to work authorization for undocumented immigrants would increase their tax contributions both because their wages would rise and because their rates of tax compliance would increase.
Ok, but what costs to they incur elsewhere (e.g., health care, housing/transportation)?
If there ever were a private investment option, I'm sure it would look very similar to the TSP program, which is basically the 401k plan for Federal employees. Only has 5 fund options, they are all index funds (bond and equity funds) and they all have fees that are near 0.
And think they may have some target date funds that are a mixture of the 5 funds, based upon estimated retirement date. Which would be the 'default'.
500 options is ridiculous. 20 options is honestly, ridiculous.
I believe TSP has 10 target date funds (which serves as the default -- although I'm personally not a fan of these) and 5 individual funds. And those 5 are as you describe. They're low-cost index funds consisting of Government Securities, Fixed Income, Common Stock, Small Cap, and International. Other than the G funds, they're BlackRock indexes.
Regardless, all he's doing with this is bitching. How about a practical solution, one that both parties could live with?
It's a case of semantics. Some people object to the term "entitlement" when it comes to Social Security as the word has one connotation that conjures up the notion of a spoiled brat who thinks he's "entitled" to something by dint of wealth or status or whatever. Using the term regarding SS is right and proper and shouldn't conjure up that notion, but for some people it just grates. Just how the language works.
That is the book, they frequently mention libertarian. They book, their research, is how to get people to make good choices without the government forcing it. It might be saving for retirement, medical care, etc. They want government drastically simplified. For example, taxes for most people should take 5 minutes and not require a pro.
One example where they seem Libertarian and they got blasted for, some countries assume you want to donate your organs and you have to register as a no. They do not like that even though donation is a good thing. They don't even like a yes no box with yes by default. Most people do not read their forms at all, most just accept the defaults. Forcing someone with religious issues to donate because they, like most, are simply in a hurry and want to get done they find wrong. They like Israel's method, if you ever want a donated organ you better have been on the list for at least 3 years.
It all makes sense to me. Taxes need simplified, the highest deductible is almost always best, and allowing some involvement in our social security all sound good.
Some of us feel entitled to the money we have paid into the system and do to November every year.
Latest posts
-
-
who is the fastest player you ever seen with the ball
- Latest: Hatchets7times
-
-
