ron paul calls for end of soc sec

[blazespinnaker]

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...-straight-talk

I disagree but you have give the man credit. He's smart, eloquent, and has the integrity of true purpose.

[jiimbergin]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?opti...-straight-talk

I disagree but you have give the man credit. He's smart, eloquent, and has the integrity of true purpose.

Well, I agree with him. My wife and I are both on Social Security and Medicare. Something has to be done to fix these two programs for our children and grandchildren's sake. Now from a purely selfish point of view, it would be nice if they waited a while

[chr5648]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

I don't even want social security if its still around when I'm old. Stop taxing me and let me do what I want to secure my future/retirement. I would much rather buy gold or save up to start a business, the government is no different than wall street when it comes to social security. .gov is just shifting the Present value and future value of cash flows, JUST LIKE THE WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME.

[c1ue]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

It should be noted that what Ron Paul is saying is not the abolishment of Social Security or Medicare.

What he is saying is:

1) Remove the accounting gimmick which allows the federal government to treat FICA revenue as any other tax revenue
2) Remove the prescription drug benefit from Medicare
3) Stop spending on overseas militarism
4) With the revenues freed up from the above, transition Social Security/Medicare to a voluntary system

Of course Congressman's Paul's message will be distorted much as it was here into a 'third rail' type speech.

[oddlots]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Thanks Clue, I was about to get lost in a tangent.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

it should be noted that what Ron Paul is saying is not the abolishment of Social Security or Medicare

wrong again. 'reject the welfare state' means only one thing.

making soc sec voluntary will destroy it. it's like making taxes voluntary. if you can't see that..

[goldy675]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

I don't even want social security if its still around when I'm old. Stop taxing me and let me do what I want to secure my future/retirement. I would much rather buy gold or save up to start a business, the government is no different than wall street when it comes to social security. .gov is just shifting the Present value and future value of cash flows, JUST LIKE THE WALL STREET PONZI SCHEME.

I agree with you in principal, and if I believed that the large majority of people out there thought and behaved as prudently, I would agree that Soc. Security should be scrapped. I would say I'm a libertarian leaning person. But imagine that as you grow older, more and more of your friends and family become destitute. Your uncle spent too much on his hot rods... looses his house. Will you take him in? Your sister lent too much money to your nephew, whose start up business failed, will you buy her groceries? Your best friend spent all his savings on medical expenses to treat his daugter's illness, will you help them out too?

Social security is not intended to provide full retirement cashflow or provide people over 65 a life of luxury. It is intended to ensure that everyone who contributed to society can at least meet very basic living standards -- food and shelter to their final days, without having to resort to begging from friends, family, or strangers. Not unlike obama care, it is an insurance program that everyone is forced to partake in.

Of course, now that people are living longer and the goverment keeps promising more benefits while raiding the Social security coffers, naturally there are huge problems with the projected path of social security. Also, it is arguably true that if people were able to keep their SS money and invest it as they see fit then economic growth rate might improve due to better general investing. But how much that growth rate would change is highly debatable, and I believe likely quite small. Overall, I have to conclude that I would prefer to live in a country with a limited social security program.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

ron paul calls for end of soc sec

That title is misleading. Moreover this is what usually seems to happen when we discuss Social Security and Medicare.

From the article what Paul is suggesting is a phasing out of Social Security over time, not eliminating the anticipated Social Security benefits for those now or soon to be dependent on them:

First, Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate unconstitutional spending - including unnecessary overseas commitments - and use the saved funds to help transition to a Social Security system that is completely voluntary. At some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits.

I like that plan.

I am living on Social Security and my savings at present. If I was just concerned for myself, I'd vote for a plan to totally eliminate Social Security tomorrow, even though that would send me back to work. Good riddance.

But many Social Security recipients do not have both sufficient savings and sufficient health for that to be an option. An abrupt stopping of Social Security payments would be cruel and immoral in my view. Many old folks have been promised these their entire lives and have little else now.

The above proposal of Ron Paul is the best I've seen, if only we had a responsible government able to execute a long term migration plan properly.

Unfortunately, we don't have such a government.

Now if only one could discuss this without a headline that made it sound like someone was proposing to end Social Security abruptly ...

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Overall, I have to conclude that I would prefer to live in a country with a limited social security program.

You have some good points there.

It used to be that families and neighbors did watch out for each other. Communities were strong; most of your siblings and cousins, their parents and children, lived within walking distance, or at least an easy horse ride. You helped each other out.

Much of this traditional cohesiveness has been destroyed in modern day society. It would be immoral to destroy traditional community and family support, without providing a semblance of a replacement.

We do have a problem funding Social Security however, or funding any form of modest living for many people, in a collapsing economy.

When I was in my peak Baby Boomer earning years, there were six of us funding the Social Security of one person such as my mother, who grew up in the Great Depression, never held a fancy job and lived dirt cheap on a meager Social Security check. Such payments did not present a great tax burden.

As I joke to my son (he doesn't find it funny -- I wonder why) soon there will be only two people like him paying my Social Security check, and with my high wage earnings for decades, that's one fine check each month. I tell him he'd better start working really hard to pay his half of my Social Security. Meanwhile, he's bouncing from one part time, low paying job to another.

Something is seriously broken with that picture.

The biggest problem in my view is Medicare, not Social Security. I agree with your post that we should have a limited social security program (nevermind my post to the contrary just above.) But the U.S. medical system is seriously all dorked up.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

wrong again. 'reject the welfare state' means only one thing.

making soc sec voluntary will destroy it. it's like making taxes voluntary. if you can't see that..

The end result, fifty years from now, is the same yes.

But abolishing it means a central mandate deciding the timing and terms of its elimination.

Making it voluntary allows for a personal decision on the timing and terms of it's elimination.

That is a big difference.

[tastymannatees]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Retirement is a luxury and probably one we are going to be doing a lot less of in the future as a society. Why stop working? My Father worked up until 2 months of his death @ 83 if he had retired at 65 my mother and him would have died poor as it was they traveled internationally every year, lived in a nice house ate in fine restaurants, dressed well and left his kids a decent inheritance. I like work, it's stimulating and the idea of hunkering down with diminishing future expectations seems like a waste of time to me.

Many have a reasonable quality of life/health up until the last couple of years. Me I am going to keep flying till I crash.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Retirement is a luxury and probably one we are going to be doing a lot less of in the future as a society. Why stop working?

One needs to separate working for money from working for other purposes, in order to answer that question.

I do as much now as I did a couple of years ago. Then I worked for money. Now I have other purposes. I'm fortunate that I don't need to work for money right now, as there are other purposes I prefer to focus on. I'll enjoy my good fortune while it lasts.

[Ghent12]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

wrong again. 'reject the welfare state' means only one thing.

making soc sec voluntary will destroy it. it's like making taxes voluntary. if you can't see that..

Aren't essentially all IRAs voluntary? Are they destroyed by that fact?

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Aren't essentially all IRAs voluntary? Are they destroyed by that fact?

No. They are destroyed by market collapses, front-running, high fees, and high inflation.

[c1ue]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

wrong again. 'reject the welfare state' means only one thing.

making soc sec voluntary will destroy it. it's like making taxes voluntary. if you can't see that..

I certainly agree that making Social Security completely or partially voluntary would destroy it.

And I also believe this is a good thing - though you would be advised to read further to understand the basis for my view.

Social Security in an aging society aggregates a massive pile of money that would tempt any government into all sorts of misbehavior. The accounting gimmick first passed by Reagan (?) was inevitable from a historical context.

Secondly Social Security under the control of a central government also gives said government the power to tax not just present, but future benefits via currency devaluation as said government controls not just the present contributed value, but value of its future expression.

Why then should the collective individuals of any nation be forced into this Devil's bargain?

From my view - a requirement to save, but not a requirement to contribute to Social Security, combined with some type of sane regulatory structure - would be a far better alternative.