Early retirement is an act of selfishness

[acroso]

Funny, dumb article by the left. (http://www.publicagenda.com/articles/early-retirement-act-selfishness)

[mavtek]

Actually I say, Government, Boomers and their stupidity relying on government, and lastly those under 40 who have been totally apathetic during our ride to this problem.

I for one say retire whenever you like if you don't need medicare or social security to do it.

[acroso]

Actually I say, Government, Boomers and their stupidity relying on government, and lastly those under 40 who have been totally apathetic during our ride to this problem.

I for one say retire whenever you like if you don't need medicare or social security to do it.

I agree. Of course the left wants everyone to be a slave to the state. I think that was the general thesis of the article.

[Kade]

Funny, dumb article by the left. (http://www.publicagenda.com/articles/early-retirement-act-selfishness)

The article was pretty good... what do you find so horrible about it?

[Kludge]

The article was pretty good... what do you find so horrible about it?

It argued that people inherently owe their labor to the country and that Americans have a duty to be unselfish.

[Kade]

It argued that people inherently owe their labor to the country and that Americans have a duty to be unselfish.

That wasn't at all the point of the article Kludge. He made a strong case for pushing Social Security benefits to closer to 80. He suggests that people should work longer and that those that don't, without good reason, are being selfish. He's right.

It was a suggestion on saving the country money, not a dictum. Quit reading things like you guys don't understand persuasive essays. Seriously, GET OVER YOUR ABSOLUTISM!!!

Jesus.

[Kludge]

It argued that people inherently owe their labor to the country and that Americans have a duty to be unselfish.




"there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic."



"For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children." Not their duty



For everyone's good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did. Should be fixed by eliminating the Welfare State - not by forcing others to work longer.

[votefreedomfirst]

Wait...some people are looking out for their own interests and not sacrificing their happiness for abstract collectivist notions? How horrible! It’s almost as if they think we live in a free country.

[Kade]

Wait...some people are looking out for their own interests and not sacrificing their happiness for abstract collectivist notions? How horrible! It’s almost as if they think we live in a free country.

You guys are looking at this in a completely shallow and moronic way... seriously, get your heads of your asses for a second.

[Kade]

"there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic."



"For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children." Not their duty



For everyone's good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did. Should be fixed by eliminating the Welfare State - not by forcing others to work longer.


And raising the age of social security won't help towards that goal?

[acroso]

I support people's right to retire whenever they want without the government paying for them.

[Kludge]

And raising the age of social security won't help towards that goal?

I suppose it may... But it virtually forces people to work longer (if they manage to live) if they seek to recover the money they put in to the corrupt system while it exists (if it exists when they retire)

Social Security needs to be eliminated.

Edit: Eliminated by leaving those in the workforce eligible and paying into SS while taking those not yet in the workforce out of SS.

[tmosley]

I suppose it may... But it virtually forces people to work longer (if they manage to live) if they seek to recover the money they put in to the corrupt system while it exists (if it exists when they retire)

Social Security needs to be eliminated.

Yeah, it would be good if they would cut down the contribution by a lot and raise the retirement age to 90 or so, which maps nicely to the original retirement date, which was well over the average lifespan of Americans at the time.

[hopeforamerica]

I support people's right to retire whenever they want without the government paying for them.

+1

[libertarian4321]

That wasn't at all the point of the article Kludge. He made a strong case for pushing Social Security benefits to closer to 80. He suggests that people should work longer and that those that don't, without good reason, are being selfish. He's right.

It was a suggestion on saving the country money, not a dictum. Quit reading things like you guys don't understand persuasive essays. Seriously, GET OVER YOUR ABSOLUTISM!!!

Jesus.

I have a good reason for retiring early. I prefer to spend my time doing volunteer work- whether for Ron Paul, Habitat for Humanity, the local animal shelter, and many others- rather than pushing papers in an office for $80,000/year.

Does that make me selfish?

BTW, this 27 year Army veteran doesn't feel he needs to be lectured on Patriotism by some twit who is an assistant history professor and former "style and culture" newspaper columnist...

[SnappleLlama]

BTW, this 27 year Army veteran doesn't feel he needs to be lectured on Patriotism by some twit who is an assistant history professor and former "style and culture" newspaper columnist...


Say what? :confused:

[Alex Libman]

This is so USSR! They used to have retarded collectivist slogans everywhere.

What's next, "By Thoroughly Chewing Your Food You Benefit The Society" :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Factoid #1: 12,000+ Boomers on average turn 50 every day.

Factoid #2: In addition to the above, 12,000+ Boomers on average now turn 60 every day, also.

These demographic phenomena will be continuing for several more years. :)

In a number of ways, demographics is destiny.<IMHO> ;)

[mediahasyou]

Coercive social programs are selfish.

[Truth Warrior]

Coercive social programs are selfish.

Write to your Congress critters and tell them that. ;)

:D

[mediahasyou]

Thus, working longer would increase national output and personal wealth. And given our nation's crying need for teachers, social service workers and public servants, millions of "seasoned citizens" could serve our communities while giving meaning and money to people with decades of life and activity left in them.

"Serve your master, you bastard slaves."

[angelatc]

You guys are looking at this in a completely shallow and moronic way... seriously, get your heads of your asses for a second.

They should have kept their hands out of my wallet if they didn't want to hear me bitch about it.

"Selfish" is demanding people pay into a system that more than half won't ever be allowed to draw from.

The average male lives 75 years. If you don't allow people to retire, what's the damned point of having retirement income?

[MGreen]

This article makes no sense. None.

Whatsoever.

I mean, the guy ends it saying we should be allowed to work as long as our grandparents did. Since when are we not allowed to work as long as we want? (though you can't work too much, or else your boss is exploiting you!)

[ARealConservative]

haha.


FRN's ~ 1913

Social Security ~ 1935

General Welfare becomes a separate taxing power ~ 1936

Retirement age lowered ~ 1961

Everyone finally realizes we are in over our heads in debt ~ 2008

Socialists refuse to revisit their mistakes preferring to criticize free people simply wishing to enjoy the last 10-20% of their life without work ~ 2008

Kade ~ what's wrong with the article? :D

[ItsTime]

That wasn't at all the point of the article Kludge. He made a strong case for pushing Social Security benefits to closer to 80. He suggests that people should work longer and that those that don't, without good reason, are being selfish. He's right.

It was a suggestion on saving the country money, not a dictum. Quit reading things like you guys don't understand persuasive essays. Seriously, GET OVER YOUR ABSOLUTISM!!!

Jesus.

collecting SS and spending it or hording it is the selfish part. Not the part of the person wanting THEIR MONEY BACK.

[acroso]

Wanting your money back means stealing it from someone else though.

Any money you give to the Federal Government will be flushed down the toilet in the immediate. There is no SS trust fund. LBJ spend it on guns and butter long ago and it barely would qualify as a trust fund even then.

[acroso]

btw- what does the spray paint can next to this thread mean?

[grizzums]

"For everyone's good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did."

Righto...Gramps retired at the ripe old age of 47.....I can handle that and am on pace to do so.

Article in general...? :rolleyes: Heard it before....ignored it then, heard it again, will do the same. Time to move along.....

[libertarian4321]

Say what? :confused:

The author of the story, the guy lecturing all of American on "patriotism" is an assistant history professor (with degrees in history, of course), who has also worked as a "style and culture" columnist for a newspaper and worked for the National Endowment for the Arts.

In other words, this clown has no qualifications for lecturing anyone on "patriotism" or financial/economic matters.

[Kade]

I have a good reason for retiring early. I prefer to spend my time doing volunteer work- whether for Ron Paul, Habitat for Humanity, the local animal shelter, and many others- rather than pushing papers in an office for $80,000/year.

Does that make me selfish?

BTW, this 27 year Army veteran doesn't feel he needs to be lectured on Patriotism by some twit who is an assistant history professor and former "style and culture" newspaper columnist...

War does not make one a patriot (more Republican talking points). I don't care when the hell you retire, or why, I think you should be much, much older when you receive ss benefits. It will save tax-payer money...

[Kade]

haha.


FRN's ~ 1913

Social Security ~ 1935

General Welfare becomes a separate taxing power ~ 1936

Retirement age lowered ~ 1961

Everyone finally realizes we are in over our heads in debt ~ 2008

Socialists refuse to revisit their mistakes preferring to criticize free people simply wishing to enjoy the last 10-20% of their life without work ~ 2008

Kade ~ what's wrong with the article? :D

I could actually respond to this if you didn't add the "socialists" label to the most important part of the diatribe...

Whatever, I'll concede this one to you guys. You are right. The article was stupid and unhelpful, and it doesn't address the real issue.


You know, with all the hard work you guys going into convincing people to behave rationally and defending you're stances without insults, It's a sheer wonder of mankind you don't have more support.

[LibertyEagle]

War does not make one a patriot (more Republican talking points). I don't care when the hell you retire, or why, I think you should be much, much older when you receive ss benefits. It will save tax-payer money...

Another option is for them to return to us all the money they stole from us in terms of social security and just call it a day. Then, it's no one's damn business when anyone retires. Just the way it should be.

[Kade]

Another option is for them to return to us all the money they stole from us in terms of social security and just call it a day. Then, it's no one's damn business when anyone retires. Just the way it should be.

SS is not really an entitlement, but rather a program that these people "paid" into... much like we pay into now...

It's more of an insurance plan that acts more like a pyramid scheme... raising the age of eligibility would drastically reduce the costs..

If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.

In this respect, the author of the article seems to understand the way to end the pyramidal aspect of SS, without privatizing it... something I generally don't have a position on...

[ARealConservative]

If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.


you have failed to grasp the nuances of private retirement planning. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Another option is for them to return to us all the money they stole from us in terms of social security and just call it a day. Then, it's no one's damn business when anyone retires. Just the way it should be.
Bingo!

:D

[Kade]

you have failed to grasp the nuances of private retirement planning. :D

I'm glad you are such an expert. Teach us oh great and wise ass of the aging!

[angelatc]

This article makes no sense. None.

Whatsoever.

I mean, the guy ends it saying we should be allowed to work as long as our grandparents did. Since when are we not allowed to work as long as we want? (though you can't work too much, or else your boss is exploiting you!)

Not to mention that too many people in the work force hold wages down.

I thought the whole propaganda point of SS was so people wouldn't need to live the harsh lives that their grandparents did.

Now they want the best of both words? Keeping our money and keeping us in the workforce?

[LibertyEagle]

They started Social Security as a "trust fund" and at first it was voluntary. Of course, that didn't last too long. Their rationale was that some people would not save for their retirement, so they wanted to "help" us out by taking our money every month and investing it for our retirement. Of course, they raided the trust fund and spent all the money, but few ever talk about that.

Now, they have changed the rhetoric to the people working must pay for those retired. Instead of the way it was intended, which was for retired people to be getting the money BACK that our dear 'ol government stole from them back when they were working.

And unfortunately, most people have forgotten and have let the government get away with this BS and theft.

[Truth Warrior]

They started Social Security as a "trust fund" and at first it was voluntary. Of course, that didn't last too long. Their rationale was that some people would not save for their retirement, so they wanted to "help" us out by taking our money every month and investing it for our retirement. Of course, they raided the trust fund and spent all the money, but few ever talk about that.

Now, they have changed the rhetoric to the people working must pay for those retired. Instead of the way it was intended, which was for retired people to be getting the money BACK that our dear 'ol government stole from them back when they were working.

And unfortunately, most people have forgotten and have let the government get away with this BS and theft. It was a Ponzi Scheme ( scam ) from day 1, by design. Life expectancy was 65 years when it was established. :p Just 1% of worker's pay will just hold it and work FOREVER. Those working have ALWAYS paid for those retired under the program.

Look out here comes the 78 MILLION Boomers.

Don't forget the employer's required matching payments also. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

I NEVER agreed with Social Security. Nor, do I trust the government with MY money.

[Kludge]

I NEVER agreed with Social Security. Nor, do I trust the government with MY money.

Take four paces to the left, and four paces to the north on the Nolan chart!

[acptulsa]

Not to mention that too many people in the work force hold wages down.

Thank you for reminding me. A large part of the "immediate need" during the Depression was a desire to get the old out of the way so more of the few existing jobs could go to younger workers.


Now they want the best of both words? Keeping our money and keeping us in the workforce?

I can't recall a neocon agenda that wasn't predicated on these goals--even the wars...

[FreeTraveler]

I've done my part for making jobs available by 'shrugging' a month after I turned 55. I'm living on savings now, but ubetcha I'll be in line for the 'free money' as soon as I'm old enough. I paid those bastids in DC thousands of dollars a year for bupkis, and if they think they're gonna screw me out of the one benefit they owe me, they can get stuffed.

How many pissed-off old fogies with military training and nothin' to lose do you think will show up in DC if they stop the checks? They better start sellin' the National Parks, is the only advice I can give 'em. :D

[Truth Warrior]

I've done my part for making jobs available by 'shrugging' a month after I turned 55. I'm living on savings now, but ubetcha I'll be in line for the 'free money' as soon as I'm old enough. I paid those bastids in DC thousands of dollars a year for bupkis, and if they think they're gonna screw me out of the one benefit they owe me, they can get stuffed.

How many pissed-off old fogies with military training and nothin' to lose do you think will show up in DC if they stop the checks? They better start sellin' the National Parks, is the only advice I can give 'em. :D


Our $100 Trillion National Debt


http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker34.html


How many National Parks are there? ;)

:D

[FreeTraveler]

Our $100 Trillion National Debt




http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker34.html


How many National Parks are there? ;)

:D
A whole bunch of them. I've visited several in the past year, since I shrugged and moved into a fifth-wheel. :D

ETA: FedGov owns something like half of most the western states, and a huge hunk of the rest. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any of it. The Sierra Club and NRA would both be interested in huge tracts, I'm sure.

[acptulsa]

A whole bunch of them. I've visited several in the past year, since I shrugged and moved into a fifth-wheel. :D

Sounds nice. Well, it's good to hear from you, stranger. :) Going to be in Minnesota in a month?

[Truth Warrior]

A whole bunch of them. I've visited several in the past year, since I shrugged and moved into a fifth-wheel. :D

ETA: FedGov owns something like half of most the western states, and a huge hunk of the rest. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any of it. The Sierra Club and NRA would both be interested in huge tracts, I'm sure.
$100 TRILLION worth? I think not. ;)

:D

[FreeTraveler]

$100 TRILLION worth? I think not. ;)

:D
That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :)

[Truth Warrior]

That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :) Value in gold or FRNs? :D

[acptulsa]

That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :)

I expect it would also be an interesting study to compare the land's worth to what the government charges corporate giants like Boise Cascade to harvest it. We might be able to base a Corporate Welfare Index on this...

[FreeTraveler]

Threadjack, but an interesting factoid pertaining to our off-topic land discussion.



The Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States. Federally-owned and managed public lands include National Parks, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

[Truth Warrior]

I expect it would also be an interesting study to compare the land's worth to what the government charges corporate giants like Boise Cascade to harvest it. We might be able to base a Corporate Welfare Index on this...

Something like $.02 per acre. :p

[acptulsa]

Something like $.02 per acre. :p

I sincerely doubt that. That's what they were getting back when pennies were copper.

[ARealConservative]

I'm glad you are such an expert. Teach us oh great and wise ass of the aging!


Sadly, some are too dense to grasp even the simplest of subjects.

In this case, it is the definition of private. If a company decides for you, then the decision is not private. You can’t have a privatized retirement system where others decide how much to save, when to stop working, etc.

[Dr.3D]

I thought those who retire early were making room for the younger people to take a job in that industry. I was always a little upset when I saw some guy who was nearly 75 still holding one of those jobs while some poor kid still had a job flipping burgers because there were no jobs paying anything more.

[Kade]

Sadly, some are too dense to grasp even the simplest of subjects.

In this case, it is the definition of private. If a company decides for you, then the decision is not private. You can’t have a privatized retirement system where others decide how much to save, when to stop working, etc.

Sounds like common sense... I don't know why I didn't think about that! Tell me more genius! Can you also explain how this applies to someone giving their opinion on people working longer? I might have missed it... I'm far too dense.

[LibertyEagle]

Take four paces to the left, and four paces to the north on the Nolan chart!

Is that where you live in world government land? If so, no thanks. :p

Note: I don't move left on much of anything, Kludgey. As "left" is more government control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ

[Truth Warrior]

I sincerely doubt that. That's what they were getting back when pennies were copper. Probably cast in granite in a 1807 law somewhere. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Sounds like common sense... I don't know why I didn't think about that! Tell me more genius! Can you also explain how this applies to someone giving their opinion on people working longer? I might have missed it... I'm far too dense.
We've noticed. :rolleyes:

[Indy4Chng]

SS is not really an entitlement, but rather a program that these people "paid" into... much like we pay into now...

It's more of an insurance plan that acts more like a pyramid scheme... raising the age of eligibility would drastically reduce the costs..

If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.

In this respect, the author of the article seems to understand the way to end the pyramidal aspect of SS, without privatizing it... something I generally don't have a position on...

It would go into a account similar to 401(k). They would have no way to control the age, other than they do with current 401(k) plans by taxing at incredible high rates it if you withdraw it before 55. The one hard part of the plan would be determine one initial value and the funding of the initial value at conversion. Your comment is a perfect example of the financial illiteracy in this country, no wonder we are a bankrupt country.

[ARealConservative]

Sounds like common sense... I don't know why I didn't think about that! Tell me more genius! Can you also explain how this applies to someone giving their opinion on people working longer? I might have missed it... I'm far too dense.

Let’s revisit your original statement for a moment:


If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.

I can be a reasonable person. Now that we agree about privatized retirement being common sense, can you explain what you meant above?

[Indy4Chng]

I would be ok with true privatized social security that was required to be paid, with the following to provisions:
1) the money is in account tied to your ss# and defaults to be invested in cash equivalents (i.e. ~ 3% return). Each year you get a statement of your balance and the money is actually set aside in a financial institution (so it really exists) and the government can't touch it by law.
2) Each year with your balance statement you would be sent a form on how to transfer your money to any private institution that is willing to handle social security investment, so you could invest in funds similar to a 401(k) if you so choose. You should also be able to roll into a IRA or 401(k) if you like.
3) You have the option to opt out, if you can answer several college level personal finance questions (so you acutally understand what it means to opt out) and you would have to go to a location in person, making you less likely to do so. Also if you could show your net worth was at a level of an accredited investor, then no test would be necessary and you could opt out at any time.

I understand that it is not a libertarian principle but if we don't do this we will be forced to bail the financial illeterate out again i.e. the case in the great depression. So this is the best case comprimise. Obviously a long way from our current plan of an unfunded pension, with the government having the ability to change the pension if they spend too much on other issues to stay in power.

[ARealConservative]

I would be ok with true privatized social security that was required to be paid

not possible. A privatized social program is an oxymoron.

[AutoDas]

Yes Kade, my master. Tell me what to do. Work until my bones break? Great! For the good of the Reich!

[The_Orlonater]

I am looking forward to Kade's response.

[Mini-Me]

The problem with the article was not the fact that the author realizes there's no money in the Social Security pyramid scheme to pay back the people who paid in. That part's obvious...we all seem to agree on that. There are actually two problems with the article. The smaller problem with the article was that the author entirely missed the point, blaming early retirees for their "unpatriotic behavior" of wanting their money back which was stolen from them in the first place...still, this view is partially understandable from a certain point of view, which I will address in a moment.

The larger problem with the article was that the author seemed to consider retirees unpatriotic for merely retiring early at all - regardless of Social Security money - because in his view, retiring means stopping your productive contribution to the economy. In the author's mind, it's supposedly your "duty" to economically help the collective masses by continuing to work and produce. That is the notion that people here consider so ugly and utterly collectivist! Besides, such a notion has no real economic basis in the first place. In reality, if your saved wages and investments are enough to live on for the rest of your life, you having earned them in the first place means that, by definition, you have already contributed your fair life share of wealth to the economy!

Back to the article author's view on retirees:
The fact is, there is no perfect solution to this problem, because so many people have paid in and there's no money left. No matter what, someone is going to get screwed by this failed socialistic program (yes, it's socialistic because it relies on redistribution of wealth). You can't really blame early retirees for wanting their share of the money back that was fleeced from them. Ultimately, the blame does not rest on any particular person not wanting to be screwed. The blame rests entirely on the people who originally started the system, the people who decided the money should be used as part of the general fund, and the politicians who have continued to let the problem get bigger and bigger without manning up and helping us cut our losses.

Social Security is the epitome of a socialistic, collectivist system...no matter how much anyone might dislike the use of those terms, they're quite accurate. The real problem is that we're already stuck in the middle of this system right now, and somebody has to pick losers. No matter what, someone's property rights are going to be permanently violated without redress...there is no entirely fair way to go about it, but the least unfair way can probably be decided by majority vote and overall consensus*. I'm seeing four basic options at our disposal, and every single one is unavoidably collectivist except possibly the first, precisely because we've become stuck in a collectivist system that should never have been started:

We can entirely screw the baby boomer generation out of all the money they paid in. We can do this by raising the payout age to ridiculous levels until finally phasing out the program, or we can end the system right away and act as if nobody ever paid in. This is perhaps the "least" collectivist solution, because it ends the program "cold turkey." Although old people wouldn't be getting their money back, it was already mostly spent on government programs that supposedly benefited their generations in particular...but to be fair, a lot was spent on Social Security for even older generations. In contrast, making younger generations pay, even for a single moment, only perpetuates the collectivism. Still, you can hardly blame old people for not liking this option...especially considering most of them did not know earlier in life that they must prepare for the system collapsing under its weight, and those who bought the government's empty promises don't have any other savings.
We can entirely screw the current and future working generations by making them pay in with the understanding that they won't get a dime back. This can be done by setting a future date when all payouts will stop. Of course, putting the entire burden on younger generations isn't fair, either - they're even less responsible for this mess than the average old person.
We can screw absolutely everyone by continuing as we have and pretending that the system won't collapse. This basically means: We keep making people pay in, and we keep paying retirees, even if it means raising taxes to nearly 100% and printing tons of money on top of it, precipitating hyperinflation and destroying our economy.
We can slowly phase out the program, amortizing the losses amongst all currently living generations relatively equally...because even though our younger generation entering the workforce now will have to partially pay for the mistakes of the politicians our oldest generation elected, at least their kids won't, and at least no single generation will get financially wiped out. The way to do this is: End our foreign empire and drastically cut government spending, thereby balancing the budget and having money left over to start paying down our debt and paying our retirees. High taxes and the IRS will have to remain until the system ends and the debt is payed off, because there's just no other way to keep the broken system afloat. Simultaneously, instead of raising the retirement age, we should set some kind of falloff curve where every year, payouts get smaller and smaller until they disappear entirely - at which point nobody is paying in, nobody is paying out, and Social Security ends. Our current working generations will have to pay into the system for a while, the younger ones understanding that they'll never get a dime back, and the middle-aged ones knowing they'll get less than the old ones. The curve would have to be set fairly so that just about every generation currently living gets screwed an equal amount over the course of their lifetime...it's not fair to young people, but it's not fair to anybody else, either...there's no fair solution. We can only go with the least unfair, and this may be it, in my opinion. (Although from the personal standpoint of a 23-year-old, making the old people deal with the problem alone sounds more appealing ;))


*Unless, of course, the people truly responsible (FDR, etc.) and their heirs somehow have a massive fortune stockpiled that they can compensate everyone with after committing such aggression against the property rights of the entire nation (even though they didn't take the money for themselves...for the most part). That would be the fairest way, but...it's unlikely to happen. ;)

[angelatc]

SS is not really an entitlement, but rather a program that these people "paid" into... much like we pay into now...

It's more of an insurance plan that acts more like a pyramid scheme... raising the age of eligibility would drastically reduce the costs..

If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.

In this respect, the author of the article seems to understand the way to end the pyramidal aspect of SS, without privatizing it... something I generally don't have a position on...

It's actually more akin to a pyramid scam than any of the above. Raising the age of eligibility means breaking a contract. People worked their entire lives, paying into a system they know is bogus, and now the plan is simply to not allow more than half of them ever collect a single dime.

I'd rather see a wage and asset test apply than make the old people work until they drop dead. But that's socialism in a nutshell - greedy and mean.

[Kade]

It's actually more akin to a pyramid scam than any of the above. Raising the age of eligibility means breaking a contract. People worked their entire lives, paying into a system they know is bogus, and now the plan is simply to not allow more than half of them ever collect a single dime.

I'd rather see a wage and asset test apply than make the old people work until they drop dead. But that's socialism in a nutshell - greedy and mean.

I don't disagree. And you don't need the socialism qualifier at the end of your comment, it is unnecessary. Many of you take for granted that fact that "socialism" is a bad thing, without the intellectual backbone to explain why without appealing to outside sources.

Raising the age of eligibility DOES NOT break the contract, since the intent was to allow for a small percentage of the living elderly past working prime would be taken care of... that we have become a healthier country, as the author of the article implies, it goes without saying that the insurance eligibility should be raised. It just makes sense... but it is only a potential solution, not an end all mandatory proclamation. Some of you are too anxious to find fault in anything.

[Feenix566]

Selfishness is patriotic.

[Feenix566]

Raising the age of eligibility means breaking a contract.

It's not a contract. Contracts require signatures. People have to make a choice to enter a contract. Social Security was forced on me at birth. The federal government was making promises with my tax dollars before I was even born. That's not a contract. That's just complete bullshit. I don't have to honor promises that were made in my name before I was even born. Anybody who says otherwise can go fuck themselves.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Funny, dumb article by the left. (http://www.publicagenda.com/articles/early-retirement-act-selfishness)

Well, we can make a observation: yes, it's selfish. But we're not saying let's ban ban this. What's wrong with an honest observation?

[Kade]

Well, we can make a observation: yes, it's selfish. But we're not saying let's ban ban this. What's wrong with an honest observation?

That is exactly what I said... :rolleyes:

[Kraig]

So is going to work and expecting a paycheck, what is wrong with selfishness again?

[Kludge]

So is going to work and expecting a paycheck, what is wrong with selfishness again?

See the "We're the Gov't and You're Not" link in my sig regarding why you should be happy the taxman doesn't take it ALL.

[The_Orlonater]

People can retire whenever they want,



if they have the money to do so. I'm not going to pay for your retirement. :)

[Kade]

People can retire whenever they want,



if they have the money to do so. I'm not going to pay for your retirement. :)

What relevance does this have to anything that was discussed on this thread?

You are paying into social security right now... you are being forced to pay into it.

You should see that money again when you retire... or preferably now, if we were to wipe it out.

We can't afford, as a country, the promise we made to all the people who paid into the "insurance" of SS. The author of this article suggests a fair, and rational way of fixing this..

By using the same original logic, that this was merely an insurance, in case you lived way past working ability, that you would be taken care of... many people would never receive the benefits, because they would not live long enough.

We should push back eligibility to the ratio it was when the program was originally created... so that only a few would reach the age...

This is the equivalent to paying into an insurance program when you know you will get into an accident... eventually the company would be broke. It's just common sense.

[Mini-Me]

That is exactly what I said... :rolleyes:

You and Joseph are right that there's nothing wrong with the author making an observation...assuming his observation is actually correct. However, one of the author's two "observations" of selfishness was so absurdly incorrect that he was actually being more selfish in making it than anyone he was referring to...his utter blindness to his own selfishness reminded me of Matthew 7:3, "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?" (I'm not a Christian, but that's a damn good passage.)

The author essentially said, Social Security issues completely aside, it's selfish of old people to retire...because, get this, the rest of the collective (like him) would benefit from the increased aggregate wealth the old people's extra production would add to the economy. Obviously, it's much more selfish of him to expect other people to work for his benefit (even though it's for the benefit of the whole collective, not just him). To further his argument, he falsely implied that early retirees are quitting work before doing their fair share in contributing enough wealth to the economy...but anyone who has legitimately earned enough money to live the rest of their life off of has earned that money by creating value for other people in the economy. When it comes to people who have earned their money (rather than people who inherited it or got it through government favoritism, etc.), their money is a quantifiable indicator of how much more wealth they have contributed to the economy than how much they've consumed. In other words, by definition, anyone who has earned enough money to live off of has already done their share and added more value to the economy than they've taken out through consumption (or are planning on taking out).

What I find so disgusting is the notion that it's not enough for people to work to support themselves (which inherently also supports others through exchange of labor, services, goods, etc.)...under this notion, individuals must supposedly continue to work beyond their need to support themselves, because it's for the "greater good." Another way to phrase the author's view on this is that it's not enough that a person works to live - instead, to truly be a good, patriotic American, you must live to work - for the good of all! :rolleyes: That attitude is the biggest problem I have with his article...not anything he says about Social Security.

His misguided views on the Social Security mess are a much smaller issue in comparison. Based on the definition of the word, he's technically correct in calling people "selfish" for wanting the money back that they were swindled out of (especially considering the means of getting that money back require continuing to swindle others). Where he goes wrong is in placing too much of the balance of blame with retirees instead of where it really belongs...with the idiots who created this pyramid scheme (or mandatory "insurance" scheme at the point of a gun, depending on how you want to look at it...), the idiots who robbed the fund for the purposes of other government programs, and the idiots who stood by doing nothing as the problem grew to insolvent proportions.

In other words...I'm not disparaging his entire article or every word he said, but I do take serious issue with some of the things he said.

[muh_roads]

Sorry I want to enjoy life a little bit before the lights go out. I don't want to work until 85. Government is the selfish one here taking it from me in the first place. If it is selfish because I don't want to refrain from taking back MY OWN MONEY because it is not good for the "glory of the U.S.S.A. motherland", then so be it.

The very concept of frowning upon those who pull from SS as soon as possible wouldn't even be a concern if the selfish government would, I dunno, spend within' its' means?

[The_Orlonater]

What relevance does this have to anything that was discussed on this thread?

You are paying into social security right now... you are being forced to pay into it.

You should see that money again when you retire... or preferably now, if we were to wipe it out.

We can't afford, as a country, the promise we made to all the people who paid into the "insurance" of SS. The author of this article suggests a fair, and rational way of fixing this..

By using the same original logic, that this was merely an insurance, in case you lived way past working ability, that you would be taken care of... many people would never receive the benefits, because they would not live long enough.

We should push back eligibility to the ratio it was when the program was originally created... so that only a few would reach the age...

This is the equivalent to paying into an insurance program when you know you will get into an accident... eventually the company would be broke. It's just common sense.

Well, I'm not the guy who's "For" Social Security,because people should manage their own money. If someone is say a multimillionaire and has worked for his money and earned it. He has they right to retire if he has enough money and doesn't have to worry. The article is right about people living longer, though. Maybe on the path to abolishing Social Security we might increase the age.

Let me ask you this, though. What age do you think people should be able to get into Social Security?

[muh_roads]

I've got a better idea to solve the problem. End the foreign military industrial complex. Use that money to fund baby boomer SS. And let young people opt out of the system and save away on their own.

Problem solved.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Funny, dumb article by the left. (http://www.publicagenda.com/articles/early-retirement-act-selfishness)

One could say that Social Security was the biggest mistake ever made by FDR but that wouldn't get to the root of the problem. The real problem was caused by the creation of the cognitive sciences -- the psychologists, sociologists, and biospherists [whatever the hell that is].
There was a time when we spent our money feeding our elderly family members because they were the wise members at the American dinner table. We have since discarded these old people to spend our money instead on the cognitive scientists. Now an old person has to hush their face any time the light goes off in Dr. Phil's head and he has something to say.

[Kade]

I've got a better idea to solve the problem. End the foreign military industrial complex. Use that money to fund baby boomer SS. And let young people opt out of the system and save away on their own.

Problem solved.

+7.

[The_Orlonater]

I've got a better idea to solve the problem. End the foreign military industrial complex. Use that money to fund baby boomer SS. And let young people opt out of the system and save away on their own.

Problem solved.

+1

But we need to steer the people away from the government. I'm no against social services all the way. For now, they're alright. There is always a few people who need them. Anyway, I think it should be done on a local level.

[Kade]

The real problem was caused by the creation of the cognitive sciences -- the psychologists, sociologists, and biospherists [whatever the hell that is].


The creation of cognitive sciences? What the hell is wrong with you? They weren't "created"...

You have no idea what you are talking about... at all.

[Dr.3D]

I am still trying to understand how early retirement would be an act of selfishness if in fact the money those people put into the fund to live off from is what they are going to get when they retired. Is it that those who hold that money have been embeseling that money and using it for other things rather than it's intended use?

Myself, I would love to have all of the money I have put into the social security system and be able to manage it myself.

[Paulitician]

Humph! The "American greatness" crap. Really convincing argument! So basically, because government is irresponsible, doesn't know how to keep balanced budgets, and promises the world to its citizens, we should be willing to bail it out when it can't make due on said promises (not doing so would make you "selfish" [THE HORROR!] and "unpatriotic" [THE HORROR!]). I'll pass. If anything, government is the biggest leech and strain on the economy. This guy is placing blame on the wrong people.

[Standing Like A Rock]

LMAO!!

That article sounded like it was written by a high schooler, could it be any more slanted?

"Well, maybe all of this is about achieving the 'good life,' 'pursuing happiness'..." This guy thinks that we are selfish to pursue happiness?WTF?? That is a right given to us by God. It is not selfish to have it and there is no way in hell that you are gonna take it away.

Also, this guy is saying that if we worked longer, we wouldn't put a strain on Social Security, without actually recognizing that the problem isn't people retiring -- IT'S THE GODDAMN WHOLE SYSTEM!!

I could say a lot more, but I will sum it all up with this:

These socialists are freaking morons!

[Mini-Me]

I've got a better idea to solve the problem. End the foreign military industrial complex. Use that money to fund baby boomer SS. And let young people opt out of the system and save away on their own.

Problem solved.

If we are to have any hope in hell of solving this problem whatsoever, we have no choice but to do this. Dismantling the empire is mandatory if our economy is to survive this upcoming financial crisis...but of course, it seems like "failure is the only option" for government sometimes. Nobody in office ever has the courage to take the plunge and make the cuts, and they'd rather just wait for it to blow up under someone else's watch.

Even if we do the right thing and end the empire, it doesn't seem like that would be enough to solve the problem by itself...future Social Security and Medicare liabilities are simply astronomical. The numbers involved are of epic proportions. In addition to saving money by ending our empire, we're still going to have to make a choice about how much we're going to screw each generation. Either the old people are going to be paid much, much less than they expected, or young people are going to have to continue to pay in for years with full knowledge that they'll never get a cent back (or a measured balance of the two). It's a sorry situation. :(