One small point about Social Security.

[Cleita]

If you make $90,000 or more a year, you will pay 6.2% a year into SS or $5,580 that breaks down to $465 a month. People who earn less than $90,000 a year will pay proportionately less. I want to know how many people could support their aged parents, grandparents or both on that amount of money? My point is why are young people upset about paying into this? It is so much cheaper than bearing the full burden of supporting aged parents.

Remember many working class families after raising children, paying for medical problems, education and the many problems life hands to them are lucky to save for retirement, so it seems to me that the paltry amount paid into Social Security is a small investment compared to what it would cost to completely support aged relatives.

I really don't understand why people wouldn't opt for the program that costs them the least in the long run? :shrug:

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Only the rich are stoked (as are brokers). Everyone else is being duped.

[SharonAnn]

2. Because they haven't figured out that they will have to support

their parents.

I think that might not be until the day the parents show up at the kid's door and say, "We're here to live with you!"

[Cleita]

3. So maybe my next question is why aren't our Democratic

leaders pointing out this very obvious fact loudly and clearly?

[getmeouttahere]

5. I've noticed that no one ever brings up the point that....

there are millions in this country who can't afford to have social security tax taken out of their paycheck(s), let alone put money away for retirement. I think that is one of the most important points that dems could make in this debate; it's certainly something I bring up to my conservative family and friends when they sing the praises of 401, I mean 201K's. Some things in this world were not meant to be delivered through the organization of a market, and a secure retirement is definitely one of them.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a person living below the poverty line was able to come up with $15-20 a month to put away. Even in the most aggressive stock portfolio, they would never have enough to adequately augment a drastically reduced social security benefit. Of course this is the person who has to work 3 jobs just to find at the end of the month they still have to sacrifice food & clothes for the kids, medication or rent money.

One of my biggest problems with this country is that people not only don't think about anything beyond their front door, but even then many of them vote against their best interests! Headscratcher doesn't begin to describe it!

[Cleita]

7. Exactly my point.

Welcome to DU by the way. The fact is that people can have personal savings in 401k's and IRAs, but SS is what is the security blanket for most when they find they don't make enough to save. Also, investing that 6% will not yield the benefit SS pays. Ask the British and the Chileans who are now reaping the rewards of their private accounts. The British are thinking of instituting a system like ours to take care of all the British who are poverty striken because of their private accounts and dependent on children who have their own children to look after.

[jody]

4. "support their aged parents, grandparents" but, why do children

have to support parents and grandparents?

I understand unusual circumstances but don't people have an obligation to forgo unnecessary expenses during their productive years and save for retirement?

Why are children and society obligated to provide the basics for survival for parents who were wastrels in their youth?
:shrug:

[Cleita]

6. Why are parents obligated to provide basics for the kids

they have? They should put them in foster care and save for their retirement instead. That works both ways doesn't it?

[jody]

10. I don't see foster care as relevant to my question. If parents choose to

have children, they have an obligation to pay the expenses of raising those children.

I understand unfortunate things do occur and society, at least one that claims to be moral, has an obligation to help the unfortunate. However, that should not be the norm.

[Colorado Blue]

8. WASTRELS? It is to laugh! Many of us never make enough

or BARELY make enough - no matter how hard we work - to cover the basics let alone create huge savings accounts.

Note: this isn't just bums I speak of although I have nothing against bums. Working class people especially in today's economy are supposed to pay for $250,000 houses, costly insurance, $20,000 cars, education for their kids, all on jobs that come and go like the spring breezes. There ARE no secure careers anymore.

Creative people RARELY have job security - yet add immeasurably to our society.

Even the so-called middle-class - presently shrinking rapidly - has no real security.

And what about people who get SICK? One illness can wipe out one's financial security - poof! Everything - gone. Starting over maybe in one's 50s. I oughta know - I'm THERE:)

I have a question: why is this culture so youth-obsessed? Taking care of ones parents in many cultures - and it used to be in this one - is an HONOR. Old people are highly valued for their wisdom and for having paved the way for the young.

Why is this culture so f&*)ing callous?

Just asking:)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. i agree

taking care of one's family is an honor...why are we letting the government support them? Is it only because we can't...or won't?

theProdigal

[jody]

13. If you don't make enough to support yourself, then should you

have children?

If your parents did not make enough to support themselves in old age, should they have had you?

I understand that unfortunate things occur and I believe society has an obligation to help however that should not be the norm.

You say "Working class people especially in today's economy are supposed to pay for $250,000 houses, costly insurance, $20,000 cars, education for their kids, all on jobs that come and go like the spring breezes."

Who set that as a standard, certainly not society. The founders of our country wisely stated in our Constitution's Preamble "promote the general Welfare". It did not say individual welfare nor did it say corporate welfare.

SCOTUS ruled that our Constitution does not obligate governments to protect an individual unless that person is in government custody.

QUOTE
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
UNQUOTE

If under our Constitution society's agents, law enforcement officers, are not obligated to protect an individual, then what is the Constitutional justification for requiring society to pay for "$250,000 houses, costly insurance, $20,000 cars, education for their kids"? Society might and does do those things but in my opinion it's a charitable act, not a requirement under our Constitution.

[ieoeja]

23. Who claimed it was a Constitutional imperative? n/t

[jody]

26. One issue is whether elderly parents can compel government

to protect them against destitution. Alternatively one can ask whether government is obligated to protect elderly parents and others against destitution.

That can only mean taking money via taxes from some individuals and using it to protect other individuals.

SCOTUS said in Deshaney v. Winnebago, “The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”

The Deshaney case was about protecting an individual against crime but the decision is a broad brush because it says the due process clause does not “impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”

If government is not obligated to protect an individual against crime including murder, then how can government be obligated to protect an individual against financial destitution?

[bobbieinok]

24. why is there such a thing as 'society'?????why isn't it everyone on your

own?????

[jody]

27. On some issues, SCOTUS has ruled everyone is alone.

For example, government is not obligated to protect an individual against crime and each individual is responsible for their own self-defense.
:shrug:

[Yupster]

9. Not to pick nits, but

the math doesn't make any sense.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that paying your FICA tax of $ 500 per month is cheaper than having your paents live with you for $ 1,200 per month.

You could also say why wouldn't a person just spend $ 50 a day on cab fare rather than the $ 20,000 to buy a car? The $ 50 is clearly cheaper than the $ 20,000.

Because the one thing (buying the car) just happens one time while the other thing (cab fare) happens for a much longer period until at some point the smaller payment for a longer time becaomes more expensive than the more expensive payment which just lasts a short time.

In your example, yes the $ 500 is cheaper than the $ 1500, but not if you pay the $ 500 for 45 years and would only have to pay the $ 1500 for seven years.

Not commenting on whether anyone's plan makes sense or not, but your math is screwy.

[Zinfandel]

14. Why the debate, more important, where is the debate?

Is it being provided for you by Bush and the republicans retoric...This is exactly what they want and are counting on.

A victory for their hero, their boy, their republican president, he can't lose this one, it'll make him look bad, not to mention, their best chance to date to destroy SS...

These are the same fuckers who have vowed to dismantle & destroy Social Security...Do you recall how the republicans used to lump the cost of SS with welfare and every other social program to justify their huge military budgets...

The republicans have made it very clear over the past seventy years how they feel about the "New Deal" including Social Security, and you've read that Rove has stated, we can, after seventy years finally change Social Security, an "entitlement program", Social Security, which goes against every republicans ideology (yet many still collect SS).

And you want to believe these lies and even debate? Do you trust a single word of what Bush says, yet you want to debate for him, devil's advocate perhaps?

Only on the basis that Bush, a corporate whore, a republican, has told you SS is in trouble? Am I making this too simplistic an argument? There shouldn't even be one among progressives. This is ALL bullshit!

They simply want their foot in the door and your willing to say, OK we'll give you a little for investment, for the money boy's, who have been dying to get their hands on future SS trillions of dollars...

They will then go through the courts in year to come to allow 100% investment, They won't stop at a small victory. They just want to get their foot in the door and they are counting on debate to get them there.

You are speaking of imaginary semantics...

Keep republican hands off Social Security. It's all bullshit, they simply want their foot in the door.

And providing debate gives it to them.

We must fight them tooth & nail!

[Cleita]

16. Yes, where are our voices?

It seems to be poor old Barbara Boxer again crying in the wilderness of other silent Democrats. Well, a lot of those tenured politicians, all cozy and warm in their seats may be in for a rude reality come 2006. We oldsters are starting to get mad and we won't take it any more.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. well, you are forgetting something

first, that there is a matching contribution by your employer. Like it or not it is real. I have been an employer and I have had to pay it so don't tell me it doesn't exist. So right there your 'pay-in' goes to over $11,000. Also, there are currently approximately three people working and paying into the system for every one that is drawing benefits...this is not rhetoric...it is fact. There may not be a crisis today; there may not be a crisis 18 years from now; there may not be a crisis 42 years from now...but there WILL come a time when the number those who pay in cannot support those drawing out (unless something dramatic happens to our population distribution). And the system as it is will begin to falter and eventually fail. It is a matter of time and numbers. Why do we have to wait until THAT time to do something...when it IS too late. I am not suggesting I have the answers...there are more variables than I am aware of so I cannot come up with a plan...but we need to let economists come up with a PERMANENTLY sustainable model...the current system is not.

theProdigal

[Cleita]

15. It does exist but it has nothing to do with an individual's

contribution, which is what I am talking about. The employer's contribution is what makes SS work. The individual doesn't worry about that because it's money he will never see even if there is no SS and you know that as well. You see, I was once an employer too.

What I am referring to are all the twenty year olds out there who are led to think that the money will go into their pockets instead of to support old people. It won't. They will be worse off than before burdened with elderly relatives. Also, employers should worry about an aging work population who won't retire or quit because they can't.

That three workers to one retiree BS comes from a lot RW think tanks. Why are you repeating it? The fact is that to keep the system solvent you have to raise the cap or raise the percentage taken out. This is what was done previously so we would have a surplus for the future retirees that our esteemed monkey in the White House has given to his rich friends and spent God knows where else.

My point is. If you can't fix Social Security in a way that will work for future generations, stop messing with it just because the Grand Old Pirate party has found another source of money to rob.

[Colorado Blue]

17. Agree we shouldn't mess with SS. But I'd like to address

the philosophical angle as well.

The contract between a government and its citizens and AMONG its citizens isn't strictly legal. It is social as well. The government provides certain services such as defense for which it collects taxes.

I believe it is IMPLICIT in the contract between citizens and their government that social welfare is every bit as significant as defense from internal enemies.

The prices of houses and cars, which are eating more than people earn, are not set by the people nor do they apparently bear much relationship between what people earn and what they must spend to live. Nor, under OUR system, is there any such thing as job security or security from wipe-out in the event of catastrophe. Our health-care system is strictly for profit and it becoming ridiculously skewed to favor the well-to-do. Corporate pensions no longer mean a hell of lot when jobs are for a few years at a time and careers must be changed midstream. Many of us will be working into our old age.

In view of that, I believe it is not CHARITY to provide safety nets and old-age/disability insurance. I believe it is absolutely vital to the stability of the economy and the long-term health of the nation. THE NATION after all is composed of its CITIZENS.

As far as having kids is concerned, don't forget we're supposed to be producing HUMAN CAPITAL:)

PS, I've always been too poor to have any. My loss - my very great loss. But I do NOT BELIEVE that having children should be a privelege for the rich.

[Colorado Blue]

19. I'd like to say something about CHARITY. Receiving it

SUCKS. It is DEMEANING. It is also unfair - people who get charity may have to suck up to some religious group. People may receive charity if somebody likes their looks, if they are cute, if they are lucky. WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?

I do not like the concept of charity at all. There is no dignity whatsoever involved in receiving charity. There is NO fucking dignity in having to beg your relatives for a bone.

Frequently, charity exists to make the GIVER feel better.

Far better to weave the safety net right into the system as a whole, and distribute it impartially, as needs and circumstances merit.

BTW I see absolutely nothing wrong with corporations coughing up to help pay for the long-term well-being of their employees. Especially for those on the bottom who have no other resources. They are frequently working HARDER for far less although to hear the highly paid execs talk about it you'd think THEY were the ones working oh so hard. It is to laugh! I've seen both sides and believe me, the $7.50/hour person is often doing back-breaking work, for long hours, with no hope of even covering the rent let alone advancing up the so-called corporate ladder.

Anyhow I am running out of rant:)

Oh wait a second - I thought of something else: the whole family/charity should take care of you idea: it's BRUTAL for WOMEN. Guess who the caregivers are? Kids on one arm, parents on the other, crazy ol' Aunt Colorado Blue on the third arm, husband, pets, and of course that JOB, where you're covering for somebody else's maternity leave AND your boss's vacation.

WOMEN - WAKE UP. How many arms do we HAVE? SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY.

[tashidelek]

18. I remember when...

Hey, hey...remember when...I'm feeling deja vu...

Back in 1982, all of us "boomers" who are now so unjustly accused by some parties of participating in some kind of deliberate "ponzi scheme" were then, just as we are now, threatened with the ever looming "crisis" in social security. Too many of us. Too few workers to pay for our retirement under the current system.

At that point, we were told, we had to permanently fix the system, to make it sustainable, so that future generations (aka our kids) wouldn't have to shoulder the burden of our retirements.

Well, yes. We accepted that we would have to almost TRIPLE the amount we contributed at that point, as would our employers. We sacrificed. As a result, we have NOT had the salary increases that we would otherwise have had. Our employers, after all, had to increase the amount that they contributed to social security. So our wages, as well as the wages of younger workers to follow, have been held forfeit, basically flat-lined since that time. AND TRILLIONS of dollars have flowed into the coffers of social security, to be held in trust for our retirement. We sacrificed, we paid. Now they want to steal it, and make our children pay again.

Big shock. Not ONE of the commentators in the MSM explains this basic fact. Of the SURPLUS. We are NOT "pay as you go" on social security, and haven't been since the early 1980's. We boomers have MORE than paid for our benefits at least through 2045, and after that to at least 80% levels. I don't know how long you intend to live, but I think that should just about do it for me!!

But now I hear that they will REDUCE benefits for those of us under the age of 55!!! When do you think that the boomer generation started, anyway!! My brother was on the front edge of it, and he is now 54. WE BOOMERS ARE FINE AS IT IS NOW FOR OUR RETIREMENT, unless the government refuses to pay back the money that they borrowed from us!!

So, this whole discussion makes me incredibly sad, angry, and disillusioned with all of those news people who should know much better than to continue to contribute to the current administration's lies about social security. And their manufactured crisis! And young people who now will be forced to take care of their parents when they otherwise would have received their due benefits should be INCREDIBLY pissed off!

The ONLY problem with the current system apparently is that the federal government has "borrowed" the money from all of that that we boomers, AND our employers, have contributed over the last 25+ years (aka "the surplus"). Leaving us with IOUs. Wink wink. And now, they of course, don't want to have to repay it. After all, they might have to decrease military spending that benefits great American corporations such as Haliburton. DUH. And now they are pushing some type of myth that boomers didn't EXPECT to get repaid anyway. Yeah, right... well, I don't really care what they think. A promise to the American public is a promise. And, I don't care to hear whose promise ("democrat" or "republican") it was or is, or excuses about who screwed it up. If the feds don't make good on these particular "IOU" promises, then ALL of the promises and pensions of ALL of the federal, state, and local municipal employees should and WILL likewise be forfeit. Why should I as a taxpayer have to work into my 80s at Wallmart to pay pensions for them, the pampered government "servants". I won't. And neither should any younger generations of Americans. Believe me. There is that much anger out here about the whole situation.


If anyone has ANY idea that this proposed shafting of the American public will go smoothly, think again. We boomers are NOT powerless. After all, we are the ones who forced the government to own up to the lies and deceit around Vietnam. And we most certainly do NOT intend to be robbed by a bunch of thugs who must be laughing up their sleeves at the whole situation.

Have a good day, please!

[Cleita]

22. Welcome to DU and yes, you guys are going to have to

fight for what you invested in and it is an investment. Even primitive hunter gatherer tribes recognize the need to take care of all the members of the tribe. Even though it is the younger adults who are doing most of the providing with the hunting and gathering, they share it equally among the children, who are just learning to provide, and elderly, who are no longer able to do those things. It's really part of whom we are as human beings.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. The People Who Support It Don't Think Long Run

If they were, they'd have figured out that throwing additional money into the markets, when no profitability or productivity gains justify that increased price, will cause long term equity inflation.

Then they will be holding equities that are overvalued, and when the eventually have to sell them to get the cash to live, they will get nowhere near the listed price, unless the gov't buys all of them at inflated prices. Eventually, there has to be a demand and price correction. But, when one gives 1 second of thought to the long term, decide they have it ALL figured out, and then think only of themselves, they don't come to this conclusion or the one you've drawn.

The Professor

[Cleita]

21. Since my husband and I retired in 1992, we had become

increasingly dependent on our SS check as a reliable source of income because our retirement accounts have varied in productivity and you are right, you keep digging into them for emergencies and other needs. Now that he is deceased, I am more than ever dependent on SS and the Medicare benefit. As imperfect as these programs are, to mess with them to make them disappear would be a terrible burden to widows and other elderly like myself who really aren't able to start over again.

[ElaineinIN]

25. Bush slept through Macro 101

you know, it was just too boring, and who really needs all that economic theory stuff anyway? :eyes:

Prof, while I've got you, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the followign: What concerns me is that most of the plans that I've heard talked about, to the exent any plan actually exists, purports to protect small investors from their own ignorance by having limited investment --such as mutual funds or bond funds. Who select the "safe investments" and what kind of impact will it have long term on the equity markets when the federal gov't appoints a board of politicos to approve safe investments? By analogy, isn't CA having a huge fight over CALPERS, and didn't the Orange County fund go bankrupt due to mismanagement?

Or maybe I'm seeing problems where there aren't any. There's enough to worry about with Social Security.