We would not foot the bill: Each person's account would consist of their input plus interest.

Jan

It's in the article. Click on the post

So well stated OMW!

So correct you are! And the government is us who foot the bill.

There was not a SS system prior to FDR and people survived. And in most cases better than they do today with a government run system. There is no better force on people than to know they may not survive if they do not make the correct decisions. Society has become soft from these safety nets & handouts. Until they are gone we will never know what true freedom is like.

Oh, Jan, it is not up to the government to compensate for human short-sightedness.

Have you read both books, allosaur?

Thank you, NaClK9, for adding a glaring omission on my part: the fact that you would own it THE most important point of the exercise...

I fully agree with your last point. People should be, and used to be, 100% responsible for providing for their future. I'm sure some people provided for themselves better than others, and for those real short-term thinkers, I'm sure charities and churches helped out. But I don't recall history reports of people in the US starving in the streets during old age in anything remotely approaching significant numbers.

On your main point, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I can only say along with the author of the main post is that, regardless of the fact that there really is no "Social Security Trust Fund", the fact remains that you contributed money that were deemed "not taxes", that you would get back someday, and I believe that is right that you should (even if it doesn't approach what you put into it).

To use a slightly different, shorter term example: if on April 15th you filed your income taxes and found you had "overpaid", would you not expect your refund back?

But to return to your other point, I think we need to figure out a reasonable plan for younger people to opt out of Social Security, actually, suspend it altogether and advise them to find an alternative, while still keeping the obligation to pay benefits to those who contributed to the program, and are too old for "opting out" to mean anything to them. And some point, Social Security would no longer exist, and the principle of people providing for their own old age would be restored.

Mama, you are correct. I can't remember the exact details because it was done sometime in the '70's (yes, people were questioning SS even back then, and before).

It was a simple study based on sound investment principles, and studied what you could have at 65 if you took your average SS "contribution" starting at the beginning of your working career, and put it into it in a very safe investment earning maybe 3%. Given compound interest etc., the study showed you would have a nest egg of at least $1M, and this is where my memory fails me, it may actually have been a significantly higher number.

No wonder at the time of it's original implementation, attempts to pass legislation allowing you to substitute or "opt out" of SS were fought so hard and defeated.

Damn, salty dog, you never cease to either amaze me or make me chuckle, or both!

The other fact that I have recently discovered is that while, technically, SS does not require that you use Medicare and Medicare does not technically require that you accept SS...(wait for it)...Clinton passed a law in 1993 that linked the two of them: If you accept Medicare you have to also accept SS. (Yes, even if you have complete medical coverage through a corporate policy.) So you now must let the same gov that runs the IRS and the Post Awful can run your health care.

This is almost made moot by the ACA...but I still have hope that will be repealed. Soon. Please.

Jan

This is clearly an appropriate idea dbhalling.

It is fine to say that we should use Ant and Grasshopper...but I ask: How many of your friends have substantial retirement accounts? Very few of mine do. So what happens when the 80% of the people in the country who do not provide for retirement get too old for work?

I do not have a Randist answer for this. I think one of the persistent problems with Ayn Rands philosophy is that she hopes that we will be good and wise if we are free. Since my observations run counter to that, I would respectfully suggest that if the gov taxed each citizen a 'retirement' fee, put that money in an individual account that was owned by the citizen (and which became part of his estate) and which was both privately handled and firewalled from gov use (as funds or as collateral) we might have a workable system.

As it is, dbhalling's idea of transferring our SSA funds to actual investment accounts would be a big relief. I agree that this is philosophically sub-par, but I struggle to imagine a workable system that does not compensate for human short-sightedness.

Jan

I neglected to mention that my pension isalso reduced by approximately 30% (WEPA), since I have a government pension.

Then I misspoke earlier. Some of the things I imagined would be coming, already appear to be here.

I see/hear a lot of rumors about Ayn Rand collecting social security in her later life. Anyone know about this?

Right, in 1949 at 15 for my first summer job.

I sleep at night by acknowledging that it is just a tax. At 41, I won't get a penny of it back. If and when everyone receiving it begins to give it back to the workers that it is being stolen from, then we'll only have lost 90% of it to the administration cost of the whole farce, early death, and the income tax on it. Since I'm not planning on using it, I'll be finding some nice young hard working folks to hand it back to along with a copy of Atlas Shrugged, while I think fondly of Ragnar Danneskjöld.

It was a mind-expanding experience.
Saw The Fountainhead too.

Thanks. Old dino been banging around in the Gulch for a few months now.
I have the feelings of a wah-wah hatchling, though.
Not really. I just thought it amusing to write that.

It is not a bad idea to invest for old age and retirement. In fact if one could live with only a government mandate (I would have issue with even this) like auto insurance, but stayed out of the funding, a savings plan that was private and individuals invested their own money it may have even profited and left remaining funds to heirs. It is government control and it is a ponzi scheme. The "separate" account has not been invested it has been raided and spent on other "goodies." The fund is reliant on demographic changes and is theft from one generation to the next. One cannot blame the recipients for the mismanagement of their money. It is all on the government. FDR knew this would happen eventually, but not until he had won the votes he wanted. A competitive, private market system was offered as an amendment to the Social security system and was defeated. The amendment was offered by Senator Bennett Clark. The Act "would have allowed employers to opt out of the system as long as they offered their employees pensions with better benefits. Senator Robert M. La Follette, a strong supporter of the original version.objected to offering citizens a choice among plans: If we shall adopt (the Clark) amendment, the government having determined to set up a federal system of old-age insurance will provide, in its own bill creating that system, competition which in the end may destroy the federal system.... It would be inviting and encouraging competition with its own plan which ultimately would undermine and destroy it." pg.184, Jim Powell, FDR's Folly...

Because of the amount of my pension, 85% of my Social Security "benefits" is taxable.

That depends on how little your precious feelings are, or how precious your little feelings are.

Welcome to the Gulch!

People started reflexively applying for Social Security numbers for their children when parents had to supply the SSNs in order to claim Johnny and Betty as dependents on their income tax returns.

However, the benefit of the deductions phases out so if you weren't going to get any benefit from the deduction you could ignore the requirement for providing SSNs -- no harm, no foul.

Isn't that our country's motto at this point?