The Looting to Come

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

Except for a few details:

1. The first generation to receive benefits never paid into the program, or only paid a small fraction of what they received
2. The people being taxed have no choice about it; money is stolen from them and given to others. This makes the program immoral, in spite of how "sound" the concept might be.
3. The people receiving the benefits have been able to get politicians to agree to adjust the amount they receive to the point where it has no correlation to what they paid in
4. With demographic shifts (fewer younger people, people living longer, etc), the math no longer works out
5. Social Security taxes aren't kept within the Social Security system; they are simply dumped into the General Fund, and spent in the same way as all other taxes (the Social Security "Trust Fund" is just an illusion; a cruel joke).
6. Unlike a real insurance plan, people who pay into the program their whole lives and then die before they draw benefits have nothing of value to leave their heirs as a result; their estate forfeits everything they paid.

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

Supplemental question: In most developed countries the public education system is funded by taxes [apparently stolen from citizens]. Does that make public education an "immoral program"?

Just askin'...

[don]

Re: The Looting to Come

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

Or to put it another way, who does it benefit to convince Americans to think of themselves as "individual investors" in their societal institutions. If you're thinking financial oligarchy, you got it buckaroo ;)

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

Or to put it another way, who does it benefit to convince Americans to think of themselves as "individual investors" in their societal institutions. If you're thinking financial oligarchy, you got it buckaroo ;)

Ding, ding, ding. Bingo! We have a winner...:cool:

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

Except for a few details:

4. With demographic shifts (fewer younger people, people living longer, etc), the math no longer works out...

This is another piece of popular bullshit that gets trotted out regularly. It falls in the same catagory as "Americans have to lower their wages to $1.00 a day Chinese levels to compete with them".

An economy that is larger than it used to be can still meet it's Social Security obligations - what matters is not how many young workers there are, but what is the total national output - a portion of which gets directed to funding the very young future workforce, and the very old past workforce.

You'll notice that the debate about the social contract always heats up whenever the economy, temporarily, stops growing.

[dummass]

Re: The Looting to Come

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

Supplemental question: In most developed countries the public education system is funded by taxes [apparently stolen from citizens]. Does that make public education an "immoral program"?

Just askin'...

You should have chosen a better example. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

You should have chosen a better example. :mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDyDtYy2I0M

Nobody [and certainly not me] is arguing that there aren't problems with public policies and programs - education, pensions, and a host of others - but the example is a good one to illustrate the major point...take off the rose coloured glasses of nostalgia, and think back to what the world was like before widespread access to public education. Ask yourself whether any of the developed countries could have advanced to this degree without it*, and further ask yourself just how far sighted were the people who advocated and instituted that social change.

Could they even do it today in the current political and economic climate? Wanna bet that whichever Party proposed it, Democrat or Republican, the other would do everything to stymie that effort...and they would get a lot of support from those that claim taxes are "stolen" and everyone should pay into the system in full before they can take anything out...:p

* Many years ago I made a trip across Oman deep into the interior [close to the edge of the Rub' al Khali]. We passed by what appeared an abandoned village. I asked my driver about it and he replied that the goverment built these settlements throughout the interior in an effort to get the nomadic bedouins to settle because that was the only hope to educate the children. Instead the bedouins dig out the buildings from the sand in the fall, over winter in the village, and in the spring pack up and resume their historical way of life. The children have no alternative but to follow in their parents and ancestors footsteps; they have no other skill and almost no knowledge of a world beyond theirs. Works for now, and sounds romantic, but that's it if we don't create at least a basic level of literacy among the population. And it's one of the important reasons that the Arab world, even the wealthier Arab nations, continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Looting to Come

I disagree; the concept is not sound at all. It is, by design, no different from a Ponzi scheme.

If you are going to have government-coerced savings, then those savings should at least be actually invested in something, not paid out to previous contributors.

Charles Ponzi (mug shot)

It's recently become popular to say that the Social Security system in the US is no different from a Ponzi scheme. Not so for several reasons, and here's the major one:

A Ponzi scheme ends ineluctably in collapse, but Social Security can be -- and has been -- adjusted so that the retired and disabled continue to receive benefits. See this CNNMoney article for a succinct analysis.

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Looting to Come

It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.

The whole social contract is that younger, working age people pay the highest taxes which go to either end of the age demographic - some to those too young to work but presumably future taxpayers [public education funding] and some to those who are well past the point where they earn enough income to support themselves solely [public pensions].

The whole argument is that all of us pass through these phases in our lives, and gain the benefit when we are very young and very old, and make the contribution in the middle years.

If you folks in the USA break that contract instead of fixing it, you will end up with an unstable society...

I think the concept is far from sound and its morally wrong.

The concept assumes everyone is the same and the real value of the money received will also be the same.

We know that is not the case, everyone has different needs, wants, expectations etc.
Also everyone lives their life differently, some taking more risk in all aspects of life, some saving more money for the future etc.

What the program does is force the working to maintain the retired while promising they will see the same rate of return in the future.

This argument doesn't even include the economic aspects of it. You have inflation playing a big factor in people receiving less than they put in and off course the fact that some retire in bad economic times others in good.

Then off course you have mismanagement, misuse of funds and all the wonderful benefits of government management.

Finally, people are forced to get into SS and basically lose money, because you do not get what you put in. If SS is so great why are people forced into it?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Looting to Come

Nobody [and certainly not me] is arguing that there aren't problems with public policies and programs - education, pensions, and a host of others - but the example is a good one to illustrate the major point...take off the rose coloured glasses of nostalgia, and think back to what the world was like before widespread access to public education.

Please don't turn this discussion into a debate of whether education is good or bad.

The tools of civilization (guns, education, medicine, computers, engines, books, religion, governments, ...) are used for both good and bad purposes.

Presently, comparing the school I went to in the 1950-1960's and the schools my son went to in the 1990-2000's, the level of mind numbing propaganda has increased and the level of hard core skills in readin' writin' and 'rithmetic has decreased.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Looting to Come

A Ponzi scheme ends ineluctably in collapse, but Social Security can be -- and has been -- adjusted so that the retired and disabled continue to receive benefits. See this CNNMoney article for a succinct analysis.

Ah - I get it - it's not a Ponzi scheme because it has not collapsed, yet! :rolleyes:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Looting to Come

See this CNNMoney article for a succinct analysis.

A couple of responses to that CNN Money article.

First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled.

I disagree. People are being misled. Many people think they are putting away money for their own retirement in Social Security, not just paying out a combination of

1. current retiree benefits and
2. taxes that end up in the general fund.

Second, Social Security isn't automatically doomed to fail.

This is an interesting point. It's like the difference between debt and equity. Debt promises a specific return, and is called in default if less than that appears, even if that lesser amount is "almost" the entire amount due. Equity promises what is available, perhaps much more, perhaps much less, perhaps nothing, paid out as dividends on earnings over the years.

A classic Ponzi scheme that makes specific promises of returns is like debt, and will eventually default, even if it's only a partial default.

Social Security is more like equity. It will pay what it can, adjusting the fraudulent CPI reports and conditions for collecting payments as need be to remain "solvent" Social Security also has an advantage that Mr. Charles Ponzi lacked. It has the backing of the largest police and military force in human history to ensure a continued supply of "eager participants."

So, no, literally and precisely, Social Security is not exactly the same as Mr. Ponzi's schemes.

But it shares two critical similarities. Your money is going to pay out current payments to others, and you're going to get less than you should.

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Looting to Come

Nobody [and certainly not me] is arguing that there aren't problems with public policies and programs - education, pensions, and a host of others - but the example is a good one to illustrate the major point...take off the rose coloured glasses of nostalgia, and think back to what the world was like before widespread access to public education. Ask yourself whether any of the developed countries could have advanced to this degree without it*, and further ask yourself just how far sighted were the people who advocated and instituted that social change.

There inlies the problem in the line of thinking of many. The developed countries did not advance because of education. They advanced because the shackles were literally removed from the people. In the sense that controls, regulations and what not were lifted and changed followed. Look at the industrial revolution it was not some government mandated effort it was "free-market" reforms that led to it and the subsequent expansion in wealth.
As people became more wealthy parents no longer needed their children to work and education became more important, even before the US passed a law saying children had to go to school many parents were already sending children to school. The overwhelming majority of parents want what is best for their kid and even if no law required them to send their kids to school they would still do it.

As an example look at the many countries throughout the world were you have a "functioning"public education system and you still have poverty? many countries in Latin America fit this category. Spain for years lagged behind other European countries despite having educated individuals, same with Portugal, Ireland etc.

Education is not a condition for success, and that is a grave assumption many people make. If you educate your population yet no jobs are available for them, what good does it do? Cuba is a good example (excluding the argument of how good the education actually is), they have many professionals working jobs which they are grossly overqualified for...

* Many years ago I made a trip across Oman deep into the interior [close to the edge of the Rub' al Khali]. We passed by what appeared an abandoned village. I asked my driver about it and he replied that the goverment built these settlements throughout the interior in an effort to get the nomadic bedouins to settle because that was the only hope to educate the children. Instead the bedouins dig out the buildings from the sand in the fall, over winter in the village, and in the spring pack up and resume their historical way of life. The children have no alternative but to follow in their parents and ancestors footsteps; they have no other skill and almost no knowledge of a world beyond theirs. Works for now, and sounds romantic, but that's it if we don't create at least a basic level of literacy among the population. And it's one of the important reasons that the Arab world, even the wealthier Arab nations, continue to fall behind the rest of the world.

Funny that you say that, because its many progressives who romanticize the old "insert your native indigenous people here" way of living. And as you rightly point out, it is a silly notion they believe then they say they would rather live that way. It's sort off like the "family farm" is talked about with nostalgia when the truth is working the fields is a very hard way of life.

The arab world is not lagging behind because of its lack of education, it is lagging behind because of oppressive government, in all aspects of life: economic, religious, social etc. Most of these governments if not all have government control of the means of production and top-down control in economic transactions.

In Latin America, look at Uruguay and Costa Rica. The latter does not have a military, has had a strong democracy with no wars for over 50 years. They have an educated society(for the region) yet they have been economically paralyzed for 50 years. Why is that?

Uruguay, though theyv'e had political conflicts they are also an educated society in the region but they have also not developed...

[Sharky]

Re: The Looting to Come

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

1. Yes
2. Yes (although it was quite a mixed bag)
3. I paid nothing, but then as a kid I didn't pay for my food or clothes, either. But my parents paid property taxes for many years, including the time before and after when I was in school, and property taxes are used to fund public education in California.

In addition, I sent my kids to private school from the very beginning, in part because I felt sending them to public school would be hypocritical and immoral, even though I've been paying property taxes myself for ages.

Supplemental question: In most developed countries the public education system is funded by taxes [apparently stolen from citizens]. Does that make public education an "immoral program"?

Yes, it does. The ends don't justify the means.

It's immoral for other reasons, too, such as forcing people to attend, the nature of subjects that are taught, how those subjects are chosen, how material is distorted for "the public good," how the State is always cast in a good light, etc, etc.

Have you heard of the Prussian System, upon which many public education systems are based?

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

There inlies the problem in the line of thinking of many. The developed countries did not advance because of education. They advanced because the shackles were literally removed from the people. In the sense that controls, regulations and what not were lifted and changed followed. Look at the industrial revolution it was not some government mandated effort it was "free-market" reforms that led to it and the subsequent expansion in wealth.
As people became more wealthy parents no longer needed their children to work and education became more important, even before the US passed a law saying children had to go to school many parents were already sending children to school. The overwhelming majority of parents want what is best for their kid and even if no law required them to send their kids to school they would still do it...

Yep, nothing like a nation full of illiterates that have been newly "freed" to take on the world - and a convenient rewriting of the history of the industrial revolution making everybody rich. LOL.

No wonder the USA is such deep trouble...:rolleyes:

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Looting to Come

Yep, nothing like a nation full of illiterates that have been newly "freed" to take on the world- and a convenient rewriting of the history of the industrial revolution making everybody rich. LOL.

No wonder the USA is such deep trouble...:rolleyes:

you are talking present tense, what nation of illiterates are you talking about?

what rewriting of history? when did I say the industrial revolution made everyone rich? the industrial revolution greatly advanced the standard of living of the time. That is all I said, do you deny that the industrial revolution advanced the standard of living?

Also it seems you do indeed believe education leads to economic progress, is this the case?