Social Security

[Accountable]

With any luck, it will totally destroy Social "Security" and I can keep a little more of my own money.

The existance of all these safety nets encourage people to depend on them rather than exercising self discipline and budgeting for the future.

[MicahLorain]

Keeping our most vulnerable secure in some sort of income, that was earned over a lifetime, is necessary in a modern nation. Hedging bets on Wall Street with people's lives will never pass the test of the people. Does Acct. imply the WW2 generation lacks responsibility because many rely on SS? My parents and grandparents need responsibility lessons from the tiny minority that doesn't want some financial security for the average earner? Those that want SS dissolved must plan on contributing to charities alot as our elders will be selling apples on the street if such a plan were hatched.

[Accountable]

MicahLorain wrote: Does Acct. imply the WW2 generation lacks responsibility because many rely on SS?


Nice-to-have things have a way of becoming necessities. Think of the microwave oven or computer. If either suddenly went away, some would actually panic, not knowing how to cope without them.

The gov't "gifts," while having the best of original intentions, have become necessities for the same reason water doesn't flow downhill in a straight line. We tend to take the easy way. If that easy way (guaranteed income without the effort of budgeting for future retirement) stays around long enough, we look at it as permanent and natural. I think of it a little like adult kids that continue to depend on parents because the parents let them. There is a tremendous pride in working for a retirement reward, such as pension or investment returns.

As I understand it, SS was never meant to be a living wage. Rather, it was a buttress to one's own retirement. But because it seemed permanent and natural, people started viewing it as a pension. If it were not pay-as-you-go there would be no problem at all. But since we are paying our parents' SS, yes I have a problem with that.

SS made us weak, if only a little, if only in this area. Let's get rid of it. Pay for people, say, 50 and older since it is too late to remedy the problem for them. For the rest of us, let's suck it up and get on with life so our children will not have the same weakness.

[Accountable]

MicahLorain wrote: Keeping our most vulnerable secure in some sort of income, that was earned over a lifetime, is necessary in a modern nation.


I disagree. It is no more necessary than a two-income family. It is a choice. Choices have consequences.

[Wolverine]

social security was originally set up with the average life span of 68 years. Since no one could start claiming SS until 65, the federal gov't didn't have to pay that long, and there was plenty of money left over. But now that people are living well into their 80s it is getting more and more difficult to pay everyone. and now that the "baby-boomer" generation is starting to retire, the number of claimants has increased alomst exponentially.

[Accountable]

Even if its pockets were bottomless, it was still never meant as a stand-alone pension, was it?