How is social security a good idea?

The Social Security department takes money from young people in order to pay older people their social security. After all the money is paid to the old people, the left over money is marked down in a book and then loaned to other government agencies. There isn't any real money in the social security "surplus". So, when the current youth gets old enough to warrent receiving social security, how's it going to be paid? The options are this: to collect on the loans to other government agencies (unlikely that these agencies will cut costs, taxes that pay for these agencies with rise), or to raise the payroll taxes that currently pay for social security. Either way the future working population is doomed to pay more taxes. You may say, "The companies that pay their workers will end up paying more of the tax, and this will only hurt the big evil corporations." But, these corporations would either have to raise prices or cut wages. So...How is social security a good idea?

How is social security a good idea?
craig is a perfect example of how it is bad. His basic "Screw the young people, give me my money attitude" is rather appalling, but old people do not care. I guess that is an example of compassion.





When craig was 13 in 1966, he and his employer were each contributing 3.8% on the first $6,600 of income. Today it is 6.2% on the first ~$94,000. But he does not care.





If you want a perfect example of how immoral and disgusting SS is:


-----


In 1936, the federal government published an informational pamphlet on Social Security. It stated:





"…and finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay."





http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.htm...


-----


Enron tells a ~$15 Billion lie and Capitalism and all of Corporate America is condemned. The Federal Government tells a multi-Trillion dollar lie to promote SS and no one cares. Especially not craig.





SS is only a good idea for those people on top of the PONZI SCHEME (which is illegal). Those on TOP always get their money. Those at the bottom (in this case young people) get the shaft. And old people do not give a damn how much we have to pay.


.
Reply:Bah ha ha. It never was a good idea. The guy that's 53 is in for a rude awakening. The first wave of baby boomers have already started to retire (they are 60 now) In just a couple of years, or 5 years before a 53 year old retires the cash flow into the system will be negative.





On the books the program will still be in the black. However, any businessman can tell you. If you don't have the cash flow you can't pay the bills. IOU's government bonds, or whatever, fictional name you want to use the fact is the money collected is being paid out. The cash reserve is merely an accounting gimmic. Because the cash is not there.





The program will not be able to meet it's obligations within a few years. There will be "much wailing and gnashing of teeth" but the only way to balance the cash flow will be to either increase with holding taxes or reduce benefits. And its going to hit the fan a lot sooner than we're being told.





It would be funny if Hiltlery is president when the economy takes a nose dive from "taxing the rich", and at the same time social security collaspes. Its going to happen.
Reply:I think when many of these programs were started, people were more hard working, saved more money, worked later years in their live, and less people required help and benefits from the state governments. Now, more people are on state-aided benefits programs for so many reasons and the poverty rate is atrocious in this country, and all of these programs are pretty much being drained dry monetarily. The question ought to be...how do we solve this problem?
Reply:To correct your question a bit, the surplus funds are certainly spent in general outlays, as required by law, but agencies are not "indebted" to the system as part of the process. The net result is the social security trust fund is simply a file cabinet full of pre-authorized future federal borrowing.





Well the system blows but you already knew that. When George Bush suggested that we privatize just a tiny little sliver of it, just a tiny little modification, he was nearly crucified on a tree and all the Republican congressman turned into good little socialists, so good luck changing it.





Craig -- if you'd been allowed to spend 40 years putting those same funds into some menu of diversified mutual funds, you'd be immensely wealthy already, instead of spending the last decades of your life dependent on government policy. Design a system with a few prudent controls and enforced diversification and there'd be virtually no possibility that you wouldn't be wealthy. And yet the same types of people to oppose privatizing social security are the ones who scream loudest about the "rich getting richer". Well no wonder the rich get richer when everyone else is forced by the government to squander 15% of their gross income in a ponzi scheme.
Reply:You may want to quality that question a bit.





Social security is a great idea for me because I'm 53 and have been paying into the system since I was 13. In a decade or so I can start collecting and I really could care less whether the money comes out of loans or your pocket, so long as I starting seeing a "return" on the money I paid in.





If you don't worry so much about how the money is managed, it's all good. You pay into the system based on your salary throughout your life and then start getting it back when you are retired.





It's only when you realize that the money is managed by the government that you start to worry. My advice? Don't think about it, unless you intend to work to abolish the system. The more you worry, the shorter your life, and we all want to live to collect, right? :-)