Senators Lee, Paul, and Graham: We’re going to fix Social Security without raising taxes

[sailingaway]

http://www.favstocks.com/senators-lee-paul-and-graham-we%E2%80%99re-going-to-fix-social-security-without-raising-taxes/1344782/

[MikeStanart]

What is that SLIME doing hanging out with our boys!!???

[fisharmor]

If only they meant "fix" in the veterinary sense.

[AuH20]

What is that SLIME doing hanging out with our boys!!???

That slime has pull unfortunately.

[sailingaway]

What is that SLIME doing hanging out with our boys!!???

Yeah. I was glad Rand stayed on the other side of Lee during the presentation. When we first heard he was working with Lindsay on this there was a great deal of concern, but people helpfully pulled up step by step instructions on how to perform cootie shots....

[jmdrake]

There is only one way to "fix" any pension program. It must be converted from a defined benefit ponzi scheme into a defined contribution investment. And people have to be allowed to opt out. At CPAC Rand said he supported an opt out provision. He needs to harp on that IMO.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Fixing Social Security without raising taxes is easy. Congress will accomplish that with ease.

Fixing Social Security without raising taxes OR using the printing press - now that's hard. Go RandLee!

[angelatc]

Fixing Social Security without raising taxes is easy. Congress will accomplish that with ease.

Fixing Social Security without raising taxes OR using the printing press - now that's hard. Go RandLee!

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

[Zatch]

Lindsey Graham must have realized he stuck his foot in his mouth about the Koran burning and is hanging out with Rand and Mike to boost his cred.

[TIMB0B]

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

I don't like it either, but I think it's a step forward in solvency and eventually we'll get to an opt-out program. We've got to make it solvent first for those that are dependent on it.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

Yup - it sucks. But there realistically seems to be no other option. Other than the printing press.

You also have to consider that if you don't means test it - the Congress will just raise taxes on the rich in other ways. So the net difference between means testings or tax hikes will likely be little.

And I think the proposal by RandLee is also going to call for people under a certain age being able to opt-out in some capacity. (Yeah, I know, good luck with that passing - but still it will be part of their plan.)

[brandon]

These assholes arguing over when I can retire can suck a bag of dicks. I don't need them to push back the date that I can get a little piece of my money back. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what I need.


Let me opt out.

[brandon]

There is only one way to "fix" any pension program. It must be converted from a defined benefit ponzi scheme into a defined contribution investment. And people have to be allowed to opt out. At CPAC Rand said he supported an opt out provision. He needs to harp on that IMO.

exactly this

[brandon]

Yup - it sucks. But there realistically seems to be no other option. Other than the printing press.


Sure there is. Admit the whole thing was a failure and shut it down. The old people who will lose benefits are the exact people responsible for setting up this ponzi scheme. If they really care about their kids and grandkids they will admit their mistake and take the hit. It's called personal responsibility.

[driller80545]

Sure there is. Admit the whole thing was a failure and shut it down. The old people who will lose benefits are the exact people responsible for setting up this ponzi scheme. If they really care about their kids and grandkids they will admit their mistake and take the hit. It's called personal responsibility.




That is total bullshit!

[Yieu]

Opt Out is all I need.

[Stary Hickory]

Opt out, let me live and die as I see fit. I'll figure out my retirement on my own. I can sure do a hell of a lot better than the US Government.

[Mini-Me]

Sure there is. Admit the whole thing was a failure and shut it down. The old people who will lose benefits are the exact people responsible for setting up this ponzi scheme. If they really care about their kids and grandkids they will admit their mistake and take the hit. It's called personal responsibility.

Even if it were fair to judge generations collectively, FDR's generation is already dead, and the younger generation of the time is now dying. The people retiring today inherited a broken system just like we have, except they inherited it at an earlier stage. I get the feeling they had about as much power back then as we have now to stop it...or even less, given its inherent insolvency wasn't so blatant back then.

I really can't say your solution is all that bad though. Someone's going to end up holding the bag, and the longer we wait, the worse it's going to be for them. I do think that anyone - at any age - who actually PLANNED to retire on Social Security is a damn idiot, and doing things your way would give them what they have coming to them. However, there are just as many people who would have saved for their own retirement, if Social Security taxes had not stolen away all the income they would have used for it.

Ignoring the immorality of continuing to tax the young to pay the old (especially for benefits we will never see a penny of), the most practical solution would be gradually scaling back payouts more and more every year as a way of phasing the program out. This would reduce the amount that our generation is extorted for, and the younger that people are, the more [explicit] advance notice they'll have that they are solely responsible for their own retirement.

[virgil47]

All that is needed is a test to determine who actually needs SS. If you were smart enough and fortunate enough to plan well then you simply don't need it. If that seems too harsh then consider it a windfall and reduce the amount you "qualify" for by 50%. Eventually the system will die a quiet death.

[Mini-Me]

All that is needed is a test to determine who actually needs SS. If you were smart enough and fortunate enough to plan well then you simply don't need it. If that seems too harsh then consider it a windfall and reduce the amount you "qualify" for by 50%. Eventually the system will die a quiet death.

Wow, I never thought of that. As a welfare measure, it necessarily rewards the irresponsible as well as the unfortunate, but as a measure for phasing out Social Security by making payouts taper off, it's actually a very practical idea.

[erowe1]

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

It is welfare already. I don't like the moral hazard that means testing creates. But I'll take any cut in expenditures over no cut in expenditures.

[One Last Battle!]

Killing SS is going to be a huge pain. It has to go eventually, but a lot of people will lose out if it is just removed altogether.

Phasing it out over time sounds like a good idea. Allowing people to opt out would be a superb way to starve it and eventually remove it.

[erowe1]

These assholes arguing over when I can retire can suck a bag of dicks. I don't need them to push back the date that I can get a little piece of my money back. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what I need.


Let me opt out.

There is no getting money back. Any money you get has to be stolen from someone else.

[RyanRSheets]

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

I like it more than I like the program.

[sailingaway]

They want to add a means test. I don't like it. I don't have any means, but it will end up being just like welfare. The lowest class of people will end up living more comfortably than those who actually worked all their lives.

It isn't quite that bad, but it will be an issue. Go look at what I posted in Rand's forum on the means test. The actual bill isn't out but the press release had a bit more. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?287568-Key-Points-on-the-Social-Security-means-testing-as-proposed-by-Rand-et-al.

[low preference guy]

Sure there is. Admit the whole thing was a failure and shut it down.

Their approach will shut it down eventually. After making it an explicit welfare program, it will lose political support. True, this is a just a step in the right direction and not immediate abolition, but it's as much progress as anyone was able to make on quite a long time.

[lx43]

Why do seniors always cry uncle whenever someone even talks about cutting their benefits? When I say something like SS should be cut my relatives always say you want old people to die.

[erowe1]

Why do seniors always cry uncle whenever someone even talks about cutting their benefits? When I say something like SS should be cut my relatives always say you want old people to die.

We even get Ron Paul supporters in this forum who are like that. It's incredible the level of support this program commands from voters.

[Justinjj1]

Let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong.

-I'm still going to be paying the same % into Social Security
- I will not be getting any of my money back until I'm 70 (almost half the population doesn't live that long)
- If I make over $46,000 a year, then I will get nothing back.
- This whole plan is designed to "save" Social Security (remind me why we want to save SS again)
- no mention of privatizing or letting people opt out

Somone please explain to me why the FUCK we should support this?

[sailingaway]

Let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong.

-I'm still going to be paying the same % into Social Security
- I will not be getting any of my money back until I'm 70 (almost half the population doesn't live that long)
- If I make over $46,000 a year, then I will get nothing back.
- This whole plan is designed to "save" Social Security (remind me why we want to save SS again)
- no mention of privatizing or letting people opt out

Somone please explain to me why the FUCK we should support this?


The part about not getting back anything if you make over $46,000 is incorrect. They are saying that everyone gets back benefits the old way based on up to a $46,000 average lifetime earnings (your average lifetime earnings is what determines how much you get paid in SS). So if you make more than that, you still get the same amount someone who made an average of $46,000 would get. HOWEVER if you really made $100,000 on average and paid SS taxes on $100,000, the amount you get above the amount you would have gotten had you only made and paid taxes on $46,000 will be calculated a different way designed for a lesser payout. One problem is inflation, which the government creates, which means that when this goes into effect, $46,000 won't be the $46,000 it is today, and already isn't the strong money it was when it was paid into the program. Another is regional cost differences. However, I don't know where this is going to go. De Mint is coming up with his own plan, and I wonder why Rand and Lee worked with Graham instead... maybe De Mint simply wasn't ready to start when they got going.....

[brandon]

I honestly just can't believe Rand put his name on this. There is nothing at all good about this. It is anti-free market, pro-big government nonsense.

[Brett85]

I honestly just can't believe Rand put his name on this. There is nothing at all good about this. It is anti-free market, pro-big government nonsense.

I suppose Rand should've introduced a bill to repeal Social Security that would get laughed at and get no cosponsors. Rand is somebody who's actually realistic and tries to get done what's actually possible. This bill will at least lower the costs of Social Security.

[brandon]

I suppose Rand should've introduced a bill to repeal Social Security that would get laughed at and get no cosponsors. Rand is somebody who's actually realistic and tries to get done what's actually possible. This bill will at least lower the costs of Social Security.

Yea it doesn't really make me feel warm and fuzzy inside when politicians try to "be realistic" and "get things done." I am a Ron Paul supporter after all, so that shouldn't really be a surprise.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Opt out or GTFO, Rand.

[AuH20]

He just defused a major bomb if he's running for president. He's essentially running circles around Obama with a bill like this. Obama is always crying that the Republicans are devoid of ideas. Blah. Blah. Social Security should be abolished but if you run on that controversial platform with so many seniors who devoutly vote, you're going to be wasting your time. If Rand can enact more radical plans for the country at the expense of a S.S. concession, by all means go for it. The game of politics is extremely strategic.

[AuH20]

Let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong.

-I'm still going to be paying the same % into Social Security
- I will not be getting any of my money back until I'm 70 (almost half the population doesn't live that long)
- If I make over $46,000 a year, then I will get nothing back.
- This whole plan is designed to "save" Social Security (remind me why we want to save SS again)
- no mention of privatizing or letting people opt out

Somone please explain to me why the FUCK we should support this?

It sucks, but that's the landscape we live in. It's the legacy of the New Deal infection. But what are you and I going to do, when the democrats declare a Social Security emergency and attempt to drive up the existing FICA taxes to the moon? And the scary thing is that Social Security is such a hot button issue because of our zombie seniors, that even fearful republicans might be swayed to vote for such measures. This at least controls the contagion for the time being and buys time.

[erowe1]

Let me get this straight, please correct me if I'm wrong.

-I'm still going to be paying the same % into Social Security
- I will not be getting any of my money back until I'm 70 (almost half the population doesn't live that long)
- If I make over $46,000 a year, then I will get nothing back.
- This whole plan is designed to "save" Social Security (remind me why we want to save SS again)
- no mention of privatizing or letting people opt out

Somone please explain to me why the F--- we should support this?

We should support anything that cuts government spending.

Can anyone explain why we shouldn't?

[Sola_Fide]

I wonder what Ron thinks about this specific bill?

[IDefendThePlatform]

We should support anything that cuts government spending.

Can anyone explain why we shouldn't?

Because it re-inforces the fallacy that its OK to tax people, as long as its the "right" amount and done in the "right" way. I personally am off the "support anything that cuts spending" bandwagon

Plus, they keep saying it will "save" social security, as if that is the goal. The goal is to phase it out (my goal, anyway). I want politicians (like Ron) who just stand up and say "No" no matter how unpopular. We will never get where we want to go otherwise.

My .02

[erowe1]

Because it re-inforces the fallacy that its OK to tax people, as long as its the "right" amount and done in the "right" way. I personally am off the "support anything that cuts spending" bandwagon

Plus, they keep saying it will "save" social security, as if that is the goal. The goal is to phase it out (my goal, anyway). I want politicians (like Ron) who just stand up and say "No" no matter how unpopular. We will never get where we want to go otherwise.

My .02

It doesn't reinforce that fallacy any more than the status quo does. It moves in the right direction, since the federal government would spend less on SS if this bill passed than it does now. Even your phrase "phase out" suggests a gradual decreasing of expenditures on the way to elimination of it. We shouldn't oppose bills that bring us closer to what we want just because they don't get us all the way there at once.

[IDefendThePlatform]

It doesn't reinforce that fallacy any more than the status quo does. It moves in the right direction, since the federal government would spend less on SS if this bill passed than it does now. Even your phrase "phase out" suggests a gradual decreasing of expenditures on the way to elimination of it. We shouldn't oppose bills that bring us closer to what we want just because they don't get us all the way there at once.

Well, what I want is an elimination of the initiation of force (AKA taxes), so this bill doesn't get my any closer to that, it just steals less money. If a thief came to my house and said I'm going to steal less from you from now on because it's fairer, then I don't really see that as progress.

IMO this is the mistake Republicans and conservatives have been making for several decades. I can't envision a scenario where the welfare state is disassembled a little bit at a time. We need to stand on principle and try to win the war of ideas.

[silverhandorder]

It is a start. However I am not sure I like it either. Instead of making people pay for benefits they do not qualify they need to kick people off who do not contribute and raise eligibility. This way the pain is shared instead of being transferred to one group.

[erowe1]

Well, what I want is an elimination of the initiation of force (AKA taxes), so this bill doesn't get my any closer to that, it just steals less money.

We must be looking at this differently. Because as I see it, stealing less money does get you closer to the elimination of taxes.

Let S = the amount stolen

S(now) > S(after cuts in SS) > 0

To get from S(now) to 0 we either have to do it all at once, or through a series of steps that decrease S. I don't think the approach that demands all at once or else nothing at all is good, because nothing at all is what you'll get.

[erowe1]

It is a start. However I am not sure I like it either. Instead of making people pay for benefits they do not qualify they need to kick people off who do not contribute and raise eligibility. This way the pain is shared instead of being transferred to one group.

The problem with what you're saying, and also with those who say allowing opt outs is the only way to go (I'd take those, I just don't think they're the only way to go), is that there's no such thing as converting it instantly to a system where people get back only what they put in. It's not just politically infeasible, it's mathematically impossible.

If we have current workers opt out of SS, while current retirees still receive their benefits, then those current benefits will still get paid by the government, and the government will still pay for them by some revenue that, when all is said and done, is going to be a tax on current workers, even if it's not through their FICA contributions. Either it will be printed/borrowed money (which taxes them), or it will be through increases in their income taxes or other taxes.

I'm like having an opt out, in the same way I like the Rand/Lee plan, because it results in less SS spending. But SS is and always has been a system of redistributing wealth from current workers to current retirees, and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that current workers wouldn't still be getting their wealth redistributed to current retirees if only they could opt out.

[ChaosControl]

Isn't raising the retirement age to 70 effectively raising taxes, doesn't that mean people would have to now pay SS until they are 70 to receive full benefits?
Also if you make it means tested, that means those that pay in the most won't get anything back, it effectively is the same as raising it.

Kind of misleading. Not that I don't support the changes, anything to phase out the monster.

[erowe1]

Isn't raising the retirement age to 70 effectively raising taxes, doesn't that mean people would have to now pay SS until they are 70 to receive full benefits?
Also if you make it means tested, that means those that pay in the most won't get anything back, it effectively is the same as raising it.

Kind of misleading. Not that I don't support the changes, anything to phase out the monster.

Not exactly.

If we start with the axiom that the amount the government spends = the amount it raises through taxes (which is true, provided you include printing/borrowing as a tax, which you should), then this plan necessarily does cut taxes, since it cuts spending.

Yes, raising the retirement age means people pay in longer before they start getting it back (if they choose to work longer, which they wouldn't be forced to), but it also means they'd get less back, which would result in a lot less spent on them and a decrease in deficit spending that would more than make up for the increase in revenue from them working longer.

On your second point, I don't see your reasoning. Yes, means testing means they won't get any back (which is a misnomer, since SS is not and never has been "getting money back"), which means less will be spent, which means, again, less deficit spending, which means less total taxation.

[ChaosControl]

If we start with the axiom that the amount the government spends = the amount it raises through taxes (which is true, provided you include printing/borrowing as a tax, which you should), then this plan necessarily does cut taxes, since it cuts spending.

This is only true if you count future and current taxes as one, as current borrowing is future rather than current taxes.
Also Social Security costs are increasing, not staying stagnant, this change is to prevent them from continuing to climb, it isn't going to really help lower them significantly, thus really no less money is really being spent, rather just a lack of an increase.

It is like when people say "OMG X party wants to slash the budget by 50%" when in reality they just wanted to cut the increase in spending by 50%, overall there was still an increase.

Same thing applies to the second part as well. Now if I see this result in a significant decrease in spending great, but unless it becomes such that I see a net decrease in payroll taxes, I still consider it an overall increase in taxes due to the increase in retirement age.

[erowe1]

This is only true if you count future and current taxes as one, as current borrowing is future rather than current taxes.

No it's not.

Current borrowing = current taxes in the form of current increases in the money supply and devaluation of everyone's dollars. That's the inflation tax RP talks about.

Look at it this way, only so many goods and services exist in the economy at any one time to be allocated among all parties (individuals, corporations, governments, etc.). These can be allocated by free choices of people doing what they really want to do with their own property, or they can be allocated by the government. Money spent by government deficit spending is spent right now, it allocates goods and services in the economy right now differently than they would be without the government doing that, the savings experienced for everyone else if the government decreased its deficit spending (as evidenced by the allocation of goods and services being according to what they want to do with their property) would be immediate, not just some future savings for a later generation of people who would no longer have to pay the debt.

Another way of making this point is to say that George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did not really cut taxes, they merely shuffled them around from one form to another while raising them.

[S.Shorland]

Liberty isn't going to come from anywhere but America.If America goes bust,it will turn Fascist in the hard sense.If you can keep it solvent,change for the better is possible.It would probably take three libertarian presidents in a row to make a dent in the state of thinking even your country has got into and the first two of them probably won't be able to show their true colours.