If given a choice to opt-out of Social Security

[Flixy]

Until your brand of Evangelical ding-battiness starts raping kiddies and hoarding guns (mostly the latter), you won't have guns pointed at you. Stop making useless and offensive straw-men about the execution of fucking taxation in modern society, it's as tiresome as it is irksome.

Well, he is from Texas. Not paying taxes is practically stealing from the state, and thieves should be shot!

That would just create an incentive to ensure that you need it when it becomes possible to collect. It'd also be a reversal of what the government's been telling us for the past half a centuryish - SS is supposed to still be our money, the government's just holding onto it for a while.

Two things:

- Regarding your first point, you mean people would make sure they earn, say, 100$ less to get 1000$ extra in SS? It can't be that hard to make the system so that by earning 100$ less you can only get 50$ extra in SS.
- I probably am confused by your meaning of social security. Is it a government pension fund or what? That conflicts with the name, social security implies to me it is a sort of insurance against social problems (poverty, unemployment, etc). Quite different things.

It was also intended for people who live to a very old age. Not too many people lived to get social security when the program was created (life expectancy was about 60). It certainly wasn't intended for all old people or all old poor people.

= why the pension age needs to be adjusted. Jobs are also a lot less physically demanding than in the past (most jobs anyway), so you can work longer than in the past, too. Hell, even the labour unions here don't oppose to raising the pension age anymore.

[Lewkowski]

Until your brand of Evangelical ding-battiness starts raping kiddies and hoarding guns (mostly the latter), you won't have guns pointed at you. Stop making useless and offensive straw-men about the execution of fucking taxation in modern society, it's as tiresome as it is irksome.

Why do you dislike me calling out what government coercion is? It is threats by the point of the gun. Sure we need some government to function but most people tend to like the ideals of freedom/liberty and what to minimize the amount of times they are forced to do something.

[Nessus]

Why do you dislike me calling out what government coercion is? It is threats by the point of the gun. Sure we need some government to function but most people tend to like the ideals of freedom/liberty and what to minimize the amount of times they are forced to do something.

It is hyperbole and it is dishonest. I know it feels really, really good in that bit of flesh behind your testicles when some ding-a-ling on the radio talks about gun-points and governments, but until insane Christo-fascists such as yourself manage to infiltrate the gummint much, much worse than Bush the Weaker did, there will not be anyone coming down on you, shoving guns in your face. For not paying taxes. You're making an appeal to emotion, oh look at me, the tiny working man, I am being oppressed by the mighty state, they are working me bare to the bone and taking all I earn, the sweat of my brow, they collect it at gun-point every night, wah de wah wah wah, that is horse-shit of the first degree. You are free to live a cozy life, poisoning the mind of your wife and child with this insanity so divorced from reality that I don't know what, and then you log on to a forum of nameless libruls (to you) and rant and rave about being held at gun-point and it's just really fucking stupid. That's why I dislike it. And fuck your "most people", citation needed, show me the numbers, but no, it's your good ole Texan gut feeling and fuck me for even asking.

[Lewkowski]

It is hyperbole and it is dishonest. I know it feels really, really good in that bit of flesh behind your testicles when some ding-a-ling on the radio talks about gun-points and governments, but until insane Christo-fascists such as yourself manage to infiltrate the gummint much, much worse than Bush the Weaker did, there will not be anyone coming down on you, shoving guns in your face. For not paying taxes.

It already happens. If you fail to pay your taxes you can go to prison.

ou're making an appeal to emotion, oh look at me, the tiny working man, I am being oppressed by the mighty state, they are working me bare to the bone and taking all I earn, the sweat of my brow, they collect it at gun-point every night,

Pssh currently the government does not take all I earn since I didn't pay any federal income taxes last year. Hell I even made a thread about it pointing this out and how that tax burden is inequitable and used myself as an example having received money FROM the government. But don't let that deter you from a perfectly good rant.

And fuck your "most people", citation needed, show me the numbers, but no, it's your good ole Texan gut feeling and fuck me for even asking.

I maintain most people enjoy freedom and liberty. Should I look for polls such as "Do you like freedom?"

[Ziggy Stardust]

At gunpoint refers to the threat of being shot.

Do you get shot if you don't pay your taxes Lewk?

[Hazir]

Flixy Social Security = AOW

[Nessus]

It already happens. If you fail to pay your taxes you can go to prison.

And unless you resist arrest, I doubt anyone shoves guns at your face. Although, you do live in Texas, so who knows

Pssh currently the government does not take all I earn since I didn't pay any federal income taxes last year. Hell I even made a thread about it pointing this out and how that tax burden is inequitable and used myself as an example having received money FROM the government. But don't let that deter you from a perfectly good rant.

You've got a set of brass ones to act all high and mighty-toity about people "ranting" at you when that seems to be the sole purpose of your posts; you're a self-proclaimed troll

I maintain most people enjoy freedom and liberty. Should I look for polls such as "Do you like freedom?"

Here's a newsflash: Most people also have different definitions for the freedom and liberty they enjoy. And your lunatic brand of evangelico-lolbertardism might not actually be the most popular definition

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lewk, being the principled fellow you are, you did send the money back to the government didn't you? Or even better, cutting out the middle man, to the nearest millionaire.

[Dreadnaught]

BTW, you didn't vote in your poll. Come on, lets have it.

I know, I'm mixed that's why I posted that. For purely selfish reasons, I would have to give it some real thought. For all I know, I'll be a complete career failure and Social Security will be an important component of my retirement.

But I also know that, with what I'm paying into Social Security and Medicare now, I am also certain I could make more from that money if I had it in my own savings account.

Philosophically, I support the idea that it should be a choice. Frack knows if Social Security would be solvent at all if people had the choice, but I would rather the government try to build a voluntary (but bankrupt) system than a coerced (but bankrupt) system.

[Hazir]

That's not an opt out, that's just leaving the care and income of elders as a charge for the state. The state of course can print money, but that's not going to do any good. So you'll be paying through taxes. Unless of course you go back and simply abolish any type of safety net and do things the way they do it in Zimbabwe. You should be ok if you don't care about having 4 times more homeless people roaming the street in front of your house.

[Being]

Dread, SS was not designed to save your money for your retirement; it uses your money to pay current eligible recipients. When you are eligible you will be paid from funds collected from the people still working. SS is not a savings account it is a tax. How many taxes do you know of that let you opt-out?

[Dreadnaught]

That's not an opt out, that's just leaving the care and income of elders as a charge for the state. The state of course can print money, but that's not going to do any good. So you'll be paying through taxes. Unless of course you go back and simply abolish any type of safety net and do things the way they do it in Zimbabwe. You should be ok if you don't care about having 4 times more homeless people roaming the street in front of your house.

Dread, SS was not designed to save your money for your retirement; it uses your money to pay current eligible recipients. When you are eligible you will be paid from funds collected from the people still working. SS is not a savings account it is a tax. How many taxes do you know of that let you opt-out?

Social Security and Medicare are managed through separate funds and are collected through separate taxes. The point of the existing SS and Medicare opt-outs is that one can totally unplug from the cost and benefit side of the equation. The fact that the option exists for some people is -- I think -- significant.

[Being]

The point of the existing SS and Medicare opt-outs is that one can totally unplug from the cost and benefit side of the equation. The fact that the option exists for some people is -- I think -- significant.

For 99.9% of the workforce the only way to opt-out of SS is to not earn wages. But that is sketchy too because if the IRS determines that some portion of your income can be considered wages then you are on the hook for the tax and penalties.

How do I opt-out of the Social Security system?

[Being]

It's not true. My understanding is SS was started primarily for the elderly. Children don't get access to SS funds, that's kinda the point.

Survivor Benefits for Your Children

[Dreadnaught]

That's the disability portion of social security, which is run more like an insurance pool. The main actuarial fail of Social Security is the old-age pension portion.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, being the principled fellow you are, you did send the money back to the government didn't you? Or even better, cutting out the middle man, to the nearest millionaire.

Of course not. As someone who plans on making more money in the future I'm sure I'll be getting reamed at a later date.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Of course not. As someone who plans on making more money in the future I'm sure I'll be getting reamed at a later date.

Not so principled after all eh? This is money which the government acquired at gunpoint mind you. This is money you didn't earn mind you. And you're not willing to give it back to those who got forced into giving that money?

So, how does the fact you're willing to screw over rich people on weak justifications of future predictions in order to line your own pockets, while ranting about people like this without any for of perspective or hesitation reflect on you?

[Lewkowski]

So, how does the fact you're willing to screw over rich people on weak justifications of future predictions in order to line your own pockets, while ranting about people like this without any for of perspective or hesitation reflect on you?

I'm an optimist so I consider this is a strong justification.

Just like in a basketball game if a ref makes a bad call against the other team, you don't just turn over the ball to make it "fair" you keep playing. Its part of the game and you'll get bad calls going the other way in the future.

[Illusions]

It already happens. If you fail to pay your taxes you can go to prison.

I'm surprised no one is going to call him out on this. In the US you can't be sent to jail for being unable to pay your taxes, or for forgetting to pay, or underpaying through error or lack of finances. The only way you can be sent to jail for failing to pay your taxes is by failing to pay them through fraud of some sort, or tax evasion.

Edit: What Lewk is proposing elsewhere would be the equivalent of me walking into a business and either:

a) someone informs me of a service or product that they offer and I take it without paying because it would benefit me, but justify my non-payment because I didn't directly ask for the service or product.

or

b) someone informs me of a service or product and I take it without paying, and feel justified in my non-payment because the service or product they offered because the business itself is run inefficiently.

Just like in a basketball game if a ref makes a bad call against the other team, you don't just turn over the ball to make it "fair" you keep playing. Its part of the game and you'll get bad calls going the other way in the future.

This is actually called being dishonest, and lacking integrity. In fact its coming to light that nearly all of your justifications for actions you'd take or like others to take are heavily detrimental to society as a whole.


Lewkowskian Philosophy on Social Behavior (The past few weeks):

We should never appease or negotiate with our neighbors when they behave poorly; instead we should inflame them more and then insult them for being inflamed.

We should never report or attempt to correct injustices that work out in our favor, even if not doing so may harm others, because there may at some future time be an injustice that works against us.

Voluntarily taking advantage of an offered service that costs money is not the same as directly asking for it in regards to whether or not one should be responsible to pay for it.

[GGT]

It's not true. My understanding is SS was started primarily for the elderly. Children don't get access to SS funds, that's kinda the point.

I don't know enough about WW1 to comment on whether US involvement affected the outcome of the war, but in WW2 it seems if the US didn't get involved in Europe, the Soviets likely would have gone all the way to the English Channel. And in Asia? If the US didn't go after Japan, who knows what would have happened.

I heard a piece on NPR about Rand's circle of libertarian thinkers, all about personal freedom and responsibility, and anyone who didn't follow her thinking in lockstep was chastized and cast out. lol Yikes.


IIRC there is a provision for children to get SS if their parents die or are crippled or something. I think GG ought to do the research though. BTW, you didn't vote in your poll. Come on, lets have it.

Just noticed this.

"America's First Social Security Program" (actually the Civil War pension) included orphans.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Later variations were changes to Title I and Title II, as what we now call "welfare" were modified.

Payment of monthly Social Security benefits began in January 1940, and were authorized not only for aged retired workers but for their aged wives or widows, children under age 18, and surviving aged parents.

The opt-out for religious: the Amish did previously pay into SS and Medicare but didn't use the benefits, because they care for their elderly (other religious groups, Catholics and Lutherans especially, have homes for aged nuns/priests and ministers). Once the exemption was created I'm not sure if they were reimbursed or not. Amish still pay state income, property and sales taxes (depending on the state).

[Lewkowski]

This is actually called being dishonest, and lacking integrity.

I guess every basketball team in the league is lacking in integrity...

[Wraith]

I wasn't going to play anymore - and I'm still not entirely sure I want to...

But social security doesn't pay so much that people can live off it comfortably, anyway - it's why you hear the discussions of elderly people on a fixed income, anyway. And I'd say the cut-off would be any sort of income that is the equivalent of what you pay in SS. So that if you want to collect SS, you're stuck living off that and no more. Somehow (I haven't actually thought it through or anything, and I'm really not going to).

I'd be fairly Marxist in making it equitable, which probably wouldn't work too well here in Amerika. You'd be screwed. But it would at least guarantee that the people who really need SS actually get it.

You're still creating that incentive to ensure that you need it. I'm already pretty screwed by the current system - it's statistically unlikely I'll get back even half the money I put in if nothing about my situation changes - there's no need to screw me more

I am still concerned with how this policy would have the government walk away from the promises and obligations they've made to people who've been paying into the system their whole life. Regardless of whether or not these people can survive being screwed by the government like that, it's wholly unfair to them to say that suddenly the government's not going to honor its comittment to pay back at least a portion of the money it's taken from them.

Two things:

- Regarding your first point, you mean people would make sure they earn, say, 100$ less to get 1000$ extra in SS? It can't be that hard to make the system so that by earning 100$ less you can only get 50$ extra in SS.
- I probably am confused by your meaning of social security. Is it a government pension fund or what? That conflicts with the name, social security implies to me it is a sort of insurance against social problems (poverty, unemployment, etc). Quite different things.

I mean that people would just spend their money right away and make sure they don't have any retirement funds by the time they're old enough to collect social security. It'd be a good strategy - they get to have more fun by spending the money now, and they'll still be taken care of in retirement. Smarter people can spend their money in ways that makes their retirement more comfortable anyways.

Hazir may have already answered your question on what this is, but since I'm not sure what AOW is, social security is a system you pay into your entire working life, and then after you reach the government approved retirement age (67 currently, with some options for collecting early in return for a lesser payment or later for more) the government starts giving that money back to you. The amount you get is based on the age you want to start collecting and how much money you've put into the system over your life. It's basically mandatory retirement savings with limits on how fast you can draw from it. You get sent a letter each year that says "this is how much you've paid so far, this is how much we think you can expect if you keep paying in at the same rate".

[Illusions]

I guess every basketball team in the league is lacking in integrity...

I guess so. You say that as if a lot of people behaving a certain way suddenly makes it okay or acceptable to do.

[Dreadnaught]

I am still concerned with how this policy would have the government walk away from the promises and obligations they've made to people who've been paying into the system their whole life. Regardless of whether or not these people can survive being screwed by the government like that, it's wholly unfair to them to say that suddenly the government's not going to honor its comittment to pay back at least a portion of the money it's taken from them.

The OASI Trust Fund (old age fund) currently has $2.3 trillion in reserve assets. In 2009, it earned almost $700 billion and distributed a little over $500 billion.

I'm obviously speculating, but it seems like there is room to pare it down if a number of people don't contribute. And don't forget that each contributor who opts-out is also no longer a liability down the road.

We all know the system is unsustainable. In an ideal world, I would rather wind it down while it's still solvent.

[Being]

And don't forget that each contributor who opts-out is also no longer a liability down the road.

Bull shit. The money to support them when their alternative doesn't will still come from tax payers.

[Dreadnaught]

No, they've explicitly forgone benefits. That's the whole framework of this thought exercise.

[Being]

No, they've explicitly forgone benefits. That's the whole framework of this thought exercise.

And society will explicitly let them starve. Nice thought.

[Hazir]

No, they've explicitly forgone benefits. That's the whole framework of this thought exercise.

Yes, and then they will be homeless and hungry in front of the gates of the gated community you'll be forced to live in a la sud-africaine. Wraith's contribution made me realise how dangerous the plans of both your and my government are when they strife to change social security from a pay as you go plan to a savings plan. It gives people like you the idea that it's their money actually and that they should be entitled to decide independently what to do with their money. A 'fund' gives you a false sense of security as we can see with private pension funds all over the world at the moment AND it tears the entire safety net to shreds.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm an optimist so I consider this is a strong justification.

Just like in a basketball game if a ref makes a bad call against the other team, you don't just turn over the ball to make it "fair" you keep playing. Its part of the game and you'll get bad calls going the other way in the future.

Your justification is: bad calls aren't bad since there will be more bad calls.

That is a very weak justification oh moral one.

[Dreadnaught]

And society will explicitly let them starve. Nice thought.

Yes, and then they will be homeless and hungry in front of the gates of the gated community you'll be forced to live in a la sud-africaine. Wraith's contribution made me realise how dangerous the plans of both your and my government are when they strife to change social security from a pay as you go plan to a savings plan. It gives people like you the idea that it's their money actually and that they should be entitled to decide independently what to do with their money. A 'fund' gives you a false sense of security as we can see with private pension funds all over the world at the moment AND it tears the entire safety net to shreds.

I don't put so little faith in people.

Governments can provide huge incentives to save before retirement age. In the US we don't tax what you put into 401(k) savings stock/bond savings plans until you're 65, and many companies match your incentive in this way. I've already saved $50k in three years in a 401(k), and reduced my income tax burden because the money is put into the account before my income taxes are deducted.

There are ways to strongly encourage people to save without siphoning off their money into a pension scheme that isn't affordable. We're on a train running full-speed into a wall, but people are fretting over whether people will bruise their elbows when the train hits the brakes.