The World Forum - Political Forums

Nonpartisan political forums. Political blogs. International news.

Discuss and debate political, cultural, social and environmental issues.

submit story | sections | topics | your account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | RSS
] International %% Africa %% Asia %% Australia/Oceania Europe %% North America %% South America %% Blogs %% Site Talk ]

 Social Insecurity


Politics

By Johnny Wright (Canada), Section United States of America
Posted on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 07:31:30 AM PST

During the third and last Presidential debate, Senator John Kerry made several references to George Bush's failure to "fix" Social Security. After the debate, I wondered why it needed fixing in the first place.

Many would have you believe that the stresses placed upon the system by soon-to-be retired "baby boomers" is the cause of all that ills Social Security. At best it is a symptom. You don't see private insurance companies panicking about the annuities they will eventually have to pay. The real cause of Social Security's problems can be found in the difference between the way in which it operates and the way in which an insurance company operates.

Insurance companies collect premiums from their customers and invest them to create wealth. This wealth generates earnings that are then used to pay annuities or life insurance benfits whenever they come due. Under this arrangement, the size of any current, previous, or next generation does not matter.

Social Security, on the other hand, has never created any real wealth. The taxes are collected and spent. In the case of the baby boomers, their taxes were collected and used to pay benefits to the much smaller generation that was already retired as well as many other government programs.

In this repect, Social Security is much like an illegal pyramid scheme. The first people who put their money into the pyramid scheme get repaid from the money received from those who join later. Everyone gets paid as long as the pyramid keeps expanding. Unfortunately, just like populations, pyramids stop expanding and those who join last are stuck with nothing but a bill.

In Kerry's opinion, the problem with Social Security could have easily been "fixed" by using budget surpluses or by denying those who create wealth with some much needed tax relief. This would have solved nothing. It would have, however, enabled the current administration to avoid handling this political time bomb, leaving the hazard to some future administration elected by our great grandchildren.

John Kerry's stand on Social Security is that it will not be privatized if he is elected President. Like many liberal Democrats, he argues that privatization would be "risky". Essesntially, they are objecting to allowing people to put their own money where they see fit. Like most politicians, they believe they know what is best for us better then we know ourselves.

The fact is, liberal opposition to the privatization of Social Security come down to dollars and cents - billions of dollars and cents. Without the Social Security "fund", they cannot buy votes with all kinds of fund-financed government programs. Unfortunately, when it comes to creating wealth and prosperity, government programs have a poor track record.

One should feel no greater a sense of insecurity than when depending on a polititian.

What's your opinion?
Welcome to our discussion below!
(Free signup required to post comments.)

Advertisement

Coming soon!

The world could use more dialogue about its differences — a little understanding goes a long way. There are many online forums where people with different perspectives yell at each other and hurl abuse. There aren't so many where completely different points of view are expressed rationally and constructively. That's why The World Forum was created.
Display: Sort:
Making choices. (none / 0) (#2)
by Luke (USA) on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 08:53:39 AM PST

Essesntially, they are objecting to allowing people to put their own money where they see fit.

If SS were ended tomorrow, with people recieving back what they put in either over time or in one lump sum, here's what I suspect would happen:

  • 95% would regard it as "free money" and spend it immediately.
  • 4% would spend some of it and save the rest, but not save any more.
  • 1% would invest it wisely and continue to save money for retirement at a level that would satisfy their financial needs when they retire.

I write software for one of the largest lenders in the US and use test data that reflects many peoples' current financial situation. Most customers of this company have multiple open trade lines and significant debt. Basically the majority of this country's population has not demonstrated the responsibility necessary to save for retirement.

I see it like this: either I can pay into SS (and save independently enough outside of SS to retire comfortably) and have a pretty good chace of living 32 years from now in a country that is not populated by destitute retirees or I could pay for the additional police force needed in the future to protect myself from desperate people with no savings.

Furthermore, I always assumed that SS funds were invested into the government to at least make a little interest. Where did you find information to contradict this?

The Power of Dependence (none / 0) (#6)
by Johnny Wright (Canada) on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 06:01:34 PM PST

     If Social Security was scraped tomorrow, there would be nothing to give back to current contributors.  Their "investments" have already been spent on current recipients.  That is why Social Security contributions cannot be thought of as investments - its a pyramid scheme.  How did it become a pyramid scheme?  Because the first people to ever collect Social Security never contributed a dime to the "fund".  
      The majority of people may not demonstrate "the responsibilty necessary to save for retirement", but neither has Social Security.  Pyramid schemes are the essence of irresponsibility.
     By the way, how exactly can you expect anyone to demonstrate responsibility for their own retirement when throughout their entire lives they have been led to believe that the government will take care of it for them?  People tend not be responsible whenever they have been absolved of that very expectation.
     I can see why some would have it that way though - dependence of the masses means power for the few.
   

[ Parent ]
Responsibility. (none / 0) (#7)
by Luke (USA) on Sat Oct 16, 2004 at 12:03:22 PM PST

Honestly I don't see large-scale demonstrations that the majority of the people in the US can consistently make good decisions. A good example is the current epidemic of overweight/obese people here. Making the correct choices when it comes to eating and exercise is possible but people will not do it. It has nothing to do with dependence and everything to do with simple inability to make a good decision.

Saving for retirement is in the same league. Anecdotally I know of nobody who doesn't save for retirement simply because "they know SS will be there". They either don't save because they can't or because they won't.

Actually if SS ended tomorrow people would get something back and if the gov't did it right you could get back what you'd paid in. But that would require budget cuts in other places. Like that'll ever happen.

[ Parent ]

Peter, meet Paul (none / 0) (#8)
by Johnny Wright (Canada) on Sat Oct 16, 2004 at 02:25:49 PM PST

     Exactly!  The only way people would get something back if Social Security ended tommorow is if the government took the "repayments" from somewhere else.  That is called "stealing from Peter to pay Paul".  That examplifies how Social Security is a pyramid scheme.  That is why it is a complete fraud - both financially and morally.
     By the way, with respect to the majority of U.S. citizens not being able to make good decisions, I think you are selling yourself far too short.  I happen to think that the fact you are the most powerful nation in the world (militarily and economically) is evidence enough that, on average, you all make very good decisions.  That is unless all that is great about the U.S. can be accredited to a few politicians.

[ Parent ]
US citizen choices. (none / 0) (#10)
by Luke (USA) on Sun Oct 17, 2004 at 09:57:15 AM PST

While all that is great about the US has nothing to do with our politicians (even though we do have the best that money can buy) I also would not attribute it to the collective intelligence and/or choice making of the ordinary citizens. I believe that when it comes down to making individual wise choices, most people in this country can't do it, whether it comes to exercise habits, eating habits or financial decisions. In order to make wise choices in these areas you have to be a firm believer in delayed gratification. This country is about instant gratification.

[ Parent ]
Self-Gratification (none / 0) (#11)
by Johnny Wright (Canada) on Thu Oct 21, 2004 at 07:27:57 PM PST

So all that is great about the U.S. has nothing to do with politicians or ordinary citizens.  Please tell me, who does get all the credit?  No, wait!  Let me guess.  Extraordinary citizens like you?

[ Parent ]
"Extraordinary" citizens.. (none / 0) (#12)
by Luke (USA) on Fri Oct 29, 2004 at 09:37:48 AM PST

are those who work hard, plan for their future and can make good choices in their lifestyle. A good percentage of the success of an individual in the US is due to luck or starting of with an advantage as well.

I didn't mean to imply that there are no good politicians or citizens, just that they aren't as widespread as you may think.

[ Parent ]

Canada Pension Plan (none / 0) (#3)
by Drog (Canada) on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 08:56:52 AM PST

Nobody here believes that we'll see any money from CPP when we're old. You need to plan for your own retirement. Here, we have RRSP's (registered retirement savings plan) to do that, where the government allows you to deduct from your income the amount you deposit each year, up to prescribed limits. I assume the U.S. has something similar?

In the US... (none / 0) (#4)
by Luke (USA) on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 09:02:53 AM PST

Most companies have 401k retirement plans which allows you to save up to $13000 (I think it's that much) each year and deduct that from your income, thus deferring income tax until you retire. There are also other non-employer sponsored savings plans that are tax-deferred like IRAs, but the savings cap is lower, I think.

Of course your retirement savings allocations are totally up to you. I hope most people don't have everything in the stock market.

[ Parent ]

Not just retirement (none / 0) (#5)
by cione (USA) on Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 10:50:32 AM PST

Social Security has to pay for much more than just retirees. People that are disabled can collect benefits also. Dependents that lose a parent can also collect until out of school or the age of 18 (I think whichever is later). The list really does go on.

As far as the debate I don't know a challenger yet that hasn't used Social Security as a good little crack in a election. Clinton used it to Bush. Bush used on Gore. Now Kerry, not really new idea but rather effective though.

____________________________________________

Sig space for rent

Not All It's Cracked Up To Be (none / 0) (#9)
by Johnny Wright (Canada) on Sat Oct 16, 2004 at 04:25:37 PM PST

I agree with your assessment of Social Security as campaign rhetoric;  it's all bark no bite - regardless of the party.

[ Parent ]


Login

Username:
Password:

Signup to post comments, to vote on story submissions and to set preferences.

create account | faq | search