ron paul calls for end of soc sec

[shiny!]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

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.

Wouldn't it be better to structure SS benefits to insure that everyone retiring who has demonstrated need, gets an amount that will insure a decent minimum quality of life, rather than solely based on what they contributed financially? I realize that is Socialism, but it's already Socialistic to tax people to pay for other's benefits- it just isn't working.

The way SS works now, widows who have been homemakers and raised children (which is a huge contribution to society) do not get full benefits. Because of poor health, I have worked very little outside the home and have mostly been supported by my husband. He will have moderate benefits when/if he retires, but upon his death I will only receive half his benefits. My own benefits won't even allow me to live on cat food.

Most people with high paying jobs have the means to invest and save for their retirement. They really don't need high SS benefits to have a decent quality of life. But women who worked as homemakers, who never got paid for their work, and who outlive their spouses for many years get next to nothing.

I think that SS has strayed from it's original mandate to be the safety net of last resort, and has become a retirement plan that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the poor who need it most.

I would rather keep an extra 15% of my meager pay to invest in my retirement as I see fit, because I'm not going to survive on SS. I appreciate Ron Paul opening up the subject for discussion and debate.

[shiny!]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

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.

Used to be, multiple generations of families lived together under one roof and looked after each other. Perhaps that will happen again. One way to put the McMansions to good use is if grandparents, parents, kids and the unmarried aunts and uncles lived together once again.

Extended families living together have a lot of social benefits. Grandparents can provide child care for the grandchildren, which benefits the children and is a huge support to working parents. Grandparents can have a better quality of life with their children and grandchildren than they can living alone across town or across the country. Add in an aunt or uncle with a job to contribute to the family's finances, and life can be pretty good.

The modern isolated family is like an octopus with its arms cut off. An extended family living under one roof is like an octopus with all its arms intact.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

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

Respectfully, I have to disagree. SocSec is clearly a ponzi scheme. The only reason it survives is because everyone is forced to contribute to it, otherwise it would be insolvent.

If it was made voluntary it would collapse immediately. Who in their right mind contributes to something like that?

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

IRAs are not ponzi schemes. Sometimes people use them to invest in ponzi schemes, but by themselves they are not.

[jiimbergin]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Wouldn't it be better to structure SS benefits to insure that everyone retiring who has demonstrated need, gets an amount that will insure a decent minimum quality of life, rather than solely based on what they contributed financially? I realize that is Socialism, but it's already Socialistic to tax people to pay for other's benefits- it just isn't working.

The way SS works now, widows who have been homemakers and raised children (which is a huge contribution to society) do not get full benefits. Because of poor health, I have worked very little outside the home and have mostly been supported by my husband. He will have moderate benefits when/if he retires, but upon his death I will only receive half his benefits. My own benefits won't even allow me to live on cat food.

Most people with high paying jobs have the means to invest and save for their retirement. They really don't need high SS benefits to have a decent quality of life. But women who worked as homemakers, who never got paid for their work, and who outlive their spouses for many years get next to nothing.

I think that SS has strayed from it's original mandate to be the safety net of last resort, and has become a retirement plan that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the poor who need it most.

I would rather keep an extra 15% of my meager pay to invest in my retirement as I see fit, because I'm not going to survive on SS. I appreciate Ron Paul opening up the subject for discussion and debate.

Actually, depending on your age and how long your husband worked, you may very well receive his full retirement benefit. Go to the ss site or http://insurancenewsnet.com/article....ype=lifehealth for more info.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Respectfully, I have to disagree. SocSec is clearly a ponzi scheme. The only reason it survives is because everyone is forced to contribute to it, otherwise it would be insolvent.

If it was made voluntary it would collapse immediately. Who in their right mind contributes to something like that?

I read Ron Paul's proposal differently than (I guess) you did, in two regards.

When you say "collapse immediately" I guess you mean all payments into or out of the system would cease immediately. Ron Paul's proposal would continue to pay out to those still in the system, with payments from the general fund. This is rather important; we should not cut off payments to the elderly already receiving them (modulo possible means testing.)

On the other regard, I do not think payments into the system would stop immediately. Ron Paul's proposes that you lose your right to receive Social Security if you stop paying. Older workers nearing retirement would be foolish to cut off access to possible decades of payments, just to avoid the last few years of paying into it.

[shiny!]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Actually, depending on your age and how long your husband worked, you may very well receive his full retirement benefit. Go to the ss site or http://insurancenewsnet.com/article....ype=lifehealth for more info.

Thank you so much for that.

[DSpencer]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

I agree with you in principal...

Then why not be a person of principle and just stop right there? The program takes money from those who earned it against their will for purposes that are outside the appropriate scope of government and run against the principles on which this country was founded.

The program needs to be ended on these grounds alone (plus it will fail regardless) the only question is how to do it without further wronging the people who have already been robbed of their retirement money. Ron Paul has the best plan I've heard by balancing the rights of young people who will never be repaid in full and also older people who have been contributing for decades and deserve something in return.

Your best friend spent all his savings on medical expenses to treat his daugter's illness, will you help them out too?

Yes. And even more so if I wasn't already being taxed for the purpose of taking care of everyone else.

In my mind there is a simple question: Do we as a society want to take care of the less fortunate members? If so, then we don't need a forced, badly managed program to do it for us. We will do it voluntarily. If not, then what is the point of social security?

I think we would find that less money is wasted, more deserving people with truly unfortunate (ie people who are not just lazy) circumstances are helped more, the recipients are more grateful and the generous folks who donate time and money feel better about the whole situation.

Does anyone really feel good when they see their paycheck has partially financed the welfare state?

[Ghent12]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Respectfully, I have to disagree. SocSec is clearly a ponzi scheme. The only reason it survives is because everyone is forced to contribute to it, otherwise it would be insolvent.

If it was made voluntary it would collapse immediately. Who in their right mind contributes to something like that?

If no sane person would willing contribute to something and there are indeed alternatives towards achieving the same end (subsistence retirement), then how can it be good to perpetuate such a system?

In my district here in Oklahoma, we had a long-shot "tea party" candidate running for the House of Representatives that had an actual, bona fide proposal for social security: end it, but honor the obligations to those that have already paid in commensurate to what they have already paid. That is how the public debt was handled when our Constitution was first ratified--it was honored but the causes for that debt were not necessarily perpetuated.

IRAs are not ponzi schemes. Sometimes people use them to invest in ponzi schemes, but by themselves they are not.

Indeed, and that is all the more reason to find some way to end Social Security. This is especially true if you are a Population Doomer, one who believes that the world's supply of people will stop expanding within a relatively few decades.

All ponzi schemes end, but this one is out in the open and subject to public policy. Do we let it crash and have several generations stuck holding the bag, or do we ease off it now before it gets worse?

[DSpencer]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

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.

What aspect of modern day society has destroyed this cohesiveness? My contention is that the replacement of the family/community support system IS what destroyed it. We've replaced a strong structure - the natural, personal, and voluntary bonds that develop in families and communities, with a weak structure - handouts taken from the pockets of an unwilling stranger.

Not only is one system morally wrong, it's a fundamentally flawed and weak system that creates a feeling of mutual resentment. The more welfare we have, the more welfare we need and will continue to need in the future.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

What aspect of modern day society has destroyed this cohesiveness? My contention is that the replacement of the family/community support system IS what destroyed it.

I agree with you to a large extent.

What are you suggesting however? Are you suggesting that because the system we have now is morally wrong, fundamentally flawed and weak, that therefore it should be removed forthwith?

Let's consider another, somewhat similar example. Let's say I run a giant world mega-corporation producing unhealthy food. Let's say that over a period of a few decades, my company, through mass marketing, regulatory capture, bribes and other means, often fraudulent or devious, manages to convert the diet of Americans from healthy food to junk food, all produced, distributed and sold through my corporations facilities.

That junk food diet now has Americans less healthy, mentally dulled and less willing or able to even manage their own well being with healthy locally grown and prepared foods.

So ... we all collectively wake up from this bad dream and realize my corporations's food is junk.

Should I just shut down my farms factories and retire on my accumulated wealth?

No, I don't think so. One hundred million Americans would starve to death over the next few weeks if I did that.

Maybe I personally should be sent to jail, or the guillotine. But the American food system would have to transition from my corporations junk food back to healthy food, and that would take some thought, some effort and some time.

[DSpencer]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

What are you suggesting however? Are you suggesting that because the system we have now is morally wrong, fundamentally flawed and weak, that therefore it should be removed forthwith?

No, I'm not suggesting that, although I don't think it would be as bad as you might expect. I would also consider it wrong to force people to pay into SS their whole lives and then cancel the program without giving them anything back.

The situation is admittedly difficult and the solutions are not perfect because the mistakes have already been made and can't be entirely reversed.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that we first have to recognize that SS and the rest of the welfare state IS the problem and must be treated as such. It doesn't need to be tweaked or funded differently. It needs to be stopped.

That doesn't mean it has to be overnight. The best approach might be to ween society off these programs. If we make cuts in other areas, it might be possible sooner than expected.

I'm relatively young and would gladly forgo any claim to future benefits if I could just stop having my income taken for SS. (Not much of a sacrifice since I sincerely believe I will never receive anything back regardless) Honestly, if someone said I could do this, but would still have to pay into the program for the next 3 years, I would still do it with a smile on my face.

I'm also not saying that people should get their full amounts paid out though. If younger generations have to sacrifice some or all of their future payments, then people close to retirement should take a hit as well.

[tsetsefly]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

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.

Ironically it has been socialism (which claims to be for the "people") that destroyed this (as von mises predicted about 60 years ago) [QUOTEIn his short volume Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises notes that modern socialism "holds the individual in tight rein from the womb to the tomb," while "the children and the adolescents are firmly integrated into the all-embracing apparatus of state control." ][/QUOTE].

From the moment the child is born the parent has seen his role diminished and replace by the state(we see this especially in more socialized countries). Once the baby is born it goes to the government assigned pre-school. Once the kid is old enough for school it once again goes to the state designated school, if the parent has enough money private school is an option(assuming off course that private schooling is allowed) if not then the parent has no choice in where the kid goes to school unless they have a choice of which state school to send the kid, which most "western" welfare states do not offer.

And it goes on till college and im not counting other such decisions such medical care and what not, where you just go to the state assigned physician. NOw what happens when that parent is of old age?

Some of those now grown up kids do not have the funds to care for their parents but most dont feel the need to because why do it if the state is going to take care of them and put them in an "retirement home".

IT has had the same effect on charity, where people feel less obliged to give (especially in their own country) because "the state will take care of them)...

[charliebrown]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Very well said shiny.

I have been begging my wife's mother to move in with us. She is becoming too old to live by herself, she is resisting and says put me in assisted living. I don't like this. I think she will be very lonely. I can't tell you how much I spend and my family spends on services and stuff because we maintain different households in different states. If we lived closer we could pool some of our resources. I have no one to watch our kids, if both my wife and I have to leave except if we hire someone.

Additionaly I am missing my nephews and nieces grow. I am a stranger to them, only seeing them every other year or so.

I think the best thing that will happen because of the coming collapse is a renewed relliance on community and family.

One of the best ideas I have heard is to gradually increase the retirement age of those under 65, say 1 month per year.
Over time, the SS system gradually fades away, as no one lives long enough to collect. Someone 20 today will have to work until 71. Someone like me near 50 will have to work to 69. This system is unfair. suppose you are one of the unlucky ones in life, with a short life expectancy. You are forced to pay into a system you will never collect from. Both my parents died before they were 62. I hope to outlive them but you never know.

[tallone]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Then why not be a person of principle and just stop right there? The program takes money from those who earned it against their will for purposes that are outside the appropriate scope of government and run against the principles on which this country was founded.

The program needs to be ended on these grounds alone (plus it will fail regardless) the only question is how to do it without further wronging the people who have already been robbed of their retirement money. Ron Paul has the best plan I've heard by balancing the rights of young people who will never be repaid in full and also older people who have been contributing for decades and deserve something in return.

Yes. And even more so if I wasn't already being taxed for the purpose of taking care of everyone else.

In my mind there is a simple question: Do we as a society want to take care of the less fortunate members? If so, then we don't need a forced, badly managed program to do it for us. We will do it voluntarily. If not, then what is the point of social security?

I think we would find that less money is wasted, more deserving people with truly unfortunate (ie people who are not just lazy) circumstances are helped more, the recipients are more grateful and the generous folks who donate time and money feel better about the whole situation.

Does anyone really feel good when they see their paycheck has partially financed the welfare state?

Right on!
All the talk about fixing SS and medicare makes me sick.

[tallone]

Re: ron paul calls for end of soc sec

Didn't he say that those who really need help would still get help, but that it should just be called what it really is...welfare. Also funds would no longer come from the Ponzi "Federal Insurance Contribution Act."