19 replies to this topic

[Kyouma]

Social Security is a monster. Worse yet, its an illogical monster which we can't get rid of.
It is a Ponzi scheme in which membership is forced, those who are paying in practically know they won't be seeing any of their money back, and the government that sponsors it is under a huge amount of duress (the old people).


Discuss

Edited by Kyouma, 15 September 2011 - 11:05 PM.

[ShadowLink64]

I suppose you see this from the American perspective, judging by the picture.

In other countries, it seems to work ok. Our taxes in Canada aren't really that much higher than US taxes, and I can tell you that universal health care is really nice. It's nice to not have to pay up the ass to get an emergency dealt with, or go for check ups, or what-have-you. We do have some problems of course with people abusing the health care system, but at the same time, it's not resulting in any system instability or large deficits as far as I know.

======

EDIT: k, I made this post when I was really tired and realized that I didn't talk at all about old-age benefits which is what this is moreso focusing on, so I'm going to post when I am more awake. xD

[talbs]

I voted yes it should be abolished. I have paid into the system for 8 years and will never see any of that money (as its projected). I know theoretically social security is a mandate so its funds could never be exhausted, and that when the time comes funds to other programs would be either be diverted to social security, or the program would be slashed entirely so that social security stays afloat; but it doesn't take much to realize the ship is sinking and has no chance of recovery.

Something is wrong with the system when the first ever monthly payment recipient paid just over $24 into it, and received over $22,000 in benefits throughout her lifetime. Quite a deficit, and its just been passed on generation to generation. It was designed hoping/assuming everyone would die before they ever reaped the benefits, and so now the retirement age just keeps getting raised and in the end they will achieve the desired outcome of us all dying before we can ever collect any money that we paid in, that is of course assuming social security doesn't completely collapse in the meantime.

A disheartening example of the programs failures comes from personal experience. My mom worked for 30 years before she became disabled and obviously unable to work any longer, and started drawing her disability benefits. Obviously that amount is affected by the amount of money you earned over the course of your lifetime (because that would determine how much you paid in) and my mother currently gets like $687 a month to live off of. That is next to nothing considering what all she has to pay for out of that. However my cousin was injured as a result of stupidity and was left unable to work, and receives around $1840 a month. To top it off, the state pays for her to go to college, as she is disabled and can't work to pay for it, however, what is the purpose of furthering education if your status of "disabled" prohibits you from working? Outrageous amount of monthly payment to her, and getting grants to go to school when getting a degree isn't going to improve her condition, she will just be disabled graduate. Does that make sense?

Edited by talbs, 15 September 2011 - 11:00 PM.

[Kyouma]

ShadowLink64, on 15 September 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

I suppose you see this from the American perspective, judging by the picture.

In other countries, it seems to work ok. Our taxes in Canada aren't really that much higher than US taxes, and I can tell you that universal health care is really nice. It's nice to not have to pay up the ass to get an emergency dealt with, or go for check ups, or what-have-you. We do have some problems of course with people abusing the health care system, but at the same time, it's not resulting in any system instability or large deficits as far as I know.

Mmhm, I'm from America.
I don't actually support a universal health care though. Its a good idea and all, but I would prefer something closer to the American system, where healthcare is privatized.
The reason being that, when the government takes over something, there usually comes very little innovation.
I know for a fact that Canada doesn't really develop new pharmaceutical drugs to try and treat new diseases or find cheaper solutions to existing sicknesses.
Once you take the private sector out of it, you're ruining the competition and mostly destroying any chance of a new product. Why try and produce your own and waste money, when your next-door America is making them for you? That's the benefit of the America's system right now. The crushing deficit is becoming a problem though....

Don't take it the wrong way though, Canada's system is great and everybody seems to be healthy there, but you have to have somebody with a privatized health care industry. Otherwise, you'll never get anything new.

@ Slink: Ahaha, no its fine, I'd love for this topic to expand a bit broader. You should put your post back.

Edited by Kyouma, 15 September 2011 - 11:04 PM.

[Kats]

I agree with you on a few points, but until our government grows some brains I don't see any solution to it in the near future. Especially considering we aren't really in control of our government, but that's a another topic in itself..
As of right now, yes I'm concerned for my future and the funds I won't be receiving, but for now I'm okay.
Adding something personal to this, my dad gets social security every month. Around 1k I think, since he did work for almost 10 years before he was diagnosed with Menier's disease.
It's not too severe, but it's enough to where he can't drive or work anymore. Without these funds (even though it's a very minute amount) I don't know where we'd be.
The fact that I'm a welfare child aside, I think that there has to be a pretty good idea for a replacement program before considering taking this one away.
Do you think there should be no form of welfare for the disabled/elderly? What are your thoughts of actually solving the problem?

[Dunvegan]

I'm a big fan of small government/Libertarianism, so I think that most programs of the government should be done away with, heavily revamped, or given to the states to deal with. When it comes to Social Security I think there should be an option to opt-out and invest in your own, personal retirement fund. I daresay the returns will be much better, and at least we'd be more assured that we'd be getting our money back.

As for how we should go about it, well, it's hard to say - I think only the people heavily involved in government have a clear idea of how SS works, but for now let those who are dependent upon it continue receiving the funds. From there, take the money that's been put into it by one person who is still working and "return" it to the investor..but this is incredibly unlikely, as the government has not been keeping/storing this money like they should have. They have been spending it.

There's no clear, defined way of fixing it, I think. It needs to be looked at very thoroughly and something definitely has to change, or else I won't be getting back any of the money I've put in.

And health care...well. I won't go into that rant.

[Kyouma]

Kats, on 16 September 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

Do you think there should be no form of welfare for the disabled/elderly? What are your thoughts of actually solving the problem?

No doubt the disabled/elderly should get some form of welfare system. As to how to go about solving the problem, that's a pretty impossible question. Sure there are possible solutions that could benefit everybody, but its a whole 'nother thing trying to pass it. The elderly vote. The young mostly don't. Not to sound crass, but the old know that they'll be gone before things get REALLY bad, and so they'll try and leech off as much as they can, without really caring about changing the system.

Also, should this be extended into unemployment too? I know of quite a few people (family members included) who work undocumented jobs, and receive unemployment benefits while they're at it. Leechers and cheaters like those people put more burden on the programs, and decrease the effectiveness of these programs.

[RubberBand]

From what I know of it, social security and medicare is borked in America, and needs a serious overhaul.

I don't think they should be removed though. Medical care is a basic human right and one's access to it shouldn't be limited by their income. I come from a country (Australia) where medical care has always been free, however previous governments have pushed for the privatisation of medicare, by taxing people higher if they don't have private health. But there is no real benefit to the private health system here. All doctors, barring some in specialised fields (eg IVF, plastics), work under both the private and public system, so you aren't getting a lower standard of care by not paying for it, or guaranteeing a higher one by having private insurance. Most regions of the country have access to both public and private hospitals, and in an emergency won't be turned away from a private one.

The greatest benefit of the public system though is cost. Because no one individual can afford to build and maintain their own hospital, all of us have to either pay into a private or a public system. Most private funds are for-profit organisations, so they charge more and you get less so they can protect their profit margins. Governments are by nature non-profit, so you get what you pay for and they have greater power to regulate costs to ensure they aren't being over inflated. Therefore, even if I had to pay cash to see a doctor, have tests, and have surgery, it would still cost me a lot less here than it would in the US where it's mostly privatised. We also have the PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) which means that our government negotiates lower prices for medicine, and the cost to the consumer is a lot lower. For example, a course of antibiotics would cost less than $16 under the PBS, and if you are a low income earner or on a pension, the cost is closer to $5.

This hasn't in any way discouraged Australians from being innovative. Some of the most remarkable medical discoveries in the last two decades have come out of this country.

Social security is also important, not just to the individual but to society in general. This is because poverty creates crime, and the more people we can keep above the poverty line, the lower the crime rate. If it were abolished entirely, society would pay the consequence, and wealthier people would feel that just as much, if not more, than poor people.

[Shampoo]

Kyouma, on 15 September 2011 - 11:01 PM, said:

The reason being that, when the government takes over something, there usually comes very little innovation.

I guess you haven't heard of this little government agency called NASA

[Kyouma]

Shampoo, on 19 September 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

I guess you haven't heard of this little government agency called NASA

And I guess you haven't heard that NASA commonly offers competitions and prize moneys to entice people to submit ideas and designs.
That's the power of capitalism at work, not the government

[Silver]

I feel that people currently US citizens should continue to be a part of SS, with the government printing more money to pay out to the last generations who orig. payed into it. Inflation? Yes. But it's the only fair way to do it. After that, a new system should be put into place; similar to the current SS, but where the general population pays a certain amount into a fund, the interest would then be payed out to those who need it; and the principal returned to the citizen who payed into the account upon retirement.

I think that would work.

[Parrot]

We need reform and a better system. Eliminating it isn't the answer to our problems.

[Kyouma]

Silver, on 19 September 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:

I feel that people currently US citizens should continue to be a part of SS, with the government printing more money to pay out to the last generations who orig. payed into it. Inflation? Yes. But it's the only fair way to do it. After that, a new system should be put into place; similar to the current SS, but where the general population pays a certain amount into a fund, the interest would then be payed out to those who need it; and the principal returned to the citizen who payed into the account upon retirement.

I think that would work.

Problem with the inflation part would be that the inflation would cause the old people's money to be worth less. In essence, they're getting more money, but using more money to buy the same things they bought before. Not really a big help.

[jcrgirl]

I think a mass genocide would work. If we randomly killed 2/3 of the country we could be like Australia and Canada

[Kyouma]

jcrgirl, on 21 September 2011 - 04:23 PM, said:

I think a mass genocide would work. If we randomly killed 2/3 of the country we could be like Australia and Canada

I hope most of those people are Tea partiers and people who are part of the idiocracy.
The two mostly go hand-in-hand

[jcrgirl]

Kyouma, on 21 September 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

I hope most of those people are Tea partiers and people who are part of the idiocracy.
The two mostly go hand-in-hand

No no that would be like something Hitler would do. I mean sure, Gemans are fucking sexy but it's not right. Therefore it must be random lol

[grafxmaster]

Parrot, on 19 September 2011 - 07:57 PM, said:

We need reform and a better system. Eliminating it isn't the answer to our problems.

I agree with this statement. I believe that we need be cutting back on social security spending, not completely taking it away. Many people, elderly and young parents, need the support of the government, and I believe that they deserve it.
There is too much abuse of the funds provided, however, and we need a better system to minimize this. What truly is "a better system" has been argued by both parties. Even the best ideas for reform never come out of committee in Congress.
I personally like the idea of the Works Progress Administration of the 1930's, wherein hard working citizens could EARN the support of the government to feed their families. Although there of course is circumstances where this is out of the question, but on a large scale this would be much more efficient/productive than government giveaways.

[Shampoo]

Kyouma, on 21 September 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

I hope most of those people are Tea partiers and people who are part of the idiocracy.
The two mostly go hand-in-hand

I would have sworn from reading your posts that you were a tea partier

[Kyouma]

Shampoo, on 21 September 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

I would have sworn from reading your posts that you were a tea partier

Ahahaa, economics wise, I'm more conservative. But socially very liberal. Is there a word for that?

If you're bored:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Edited by Kyouma, 21 September 2011 - 07:42 PM.

[grafxmaster]

Kyouma, on 21 September 2011 - 07:41 PM, said:

Ahahaa, economics wise, I'm more conservative. But socially very liberal. Is there a word for that?

Most people consider that being "Libertarian." I, too, find myself being closely aligned to those beliefs although I'm slightly more liberal than conservative.
I think people regardless of political party can see that the social security system is flawed.