How Should I Respond to my Friend on his Social Security Question?

[Sentinelrv]

I've been talking to a friend trying to convince him of Ron. He likes him but thought he was going to shut down social security, so I told him that he'd be ending the wars, which would shore up money that could be used on the entitlement programs, helping us to transition out of them over time. For example, young people would be allowed to opt out of these programs, allowing us to not have our money be taxed away from us, letting us freely plan for our retirement using all of the money available to us. He likes the idea but believes it's a utopian belief that people would just automatically take care of themselves and save for their retirement. Here is his response...


in my opinion he's one of the few politicians who actually votes on his beliefs, not just who-ever is sponsoring him. I like t...hat idea with social security, but I do think it presents a sort of Utopia where we'd rationally put some income away for retirement, this doesn't occur in real life. People won't save for the future unless there are programs that take the money out of their paychecks. I don't think it would be the end of the world but you would have a glut of people who havn't saved for retirement who basically have nothing - a wider spread homeless problem.

In Australia we have something called super, basically your employer pays 9% extra ontop of your paycheck and its put away in a private superfund (which you cannot access until you retire). its invested in bonds, stocks etc etc. what YOU have at the end of your workinglife is what YOU have. we do have a system to look after those who havn't saved enough or have run out of super but its not much, basically enough to save them from the street. I doubt that would work in America, politicians don't have the balls to tell corporations to pay their fair share of tax let alone look after their past employees. I have no idea how our politicians bungled out that deal in the first place lol.

I've also thought about this. I don't support our money being taxed away from us, but I do see his point. People can be very unresponsible. How should I respond to him on this? What would happen to these people who haven't planned for their future in Dr. Paul's version of society? Another question is how did things play out before social security was implemented in the first place?

[emazur]

If he thinks ordinary people are unable to save for the future, what makes him think the government is able to save for the future? Fact is, there is no "trust fund" and whatever trust fund people think there is, is (and has been for a long time) made up from treasury bonds - meaning borrowed money - and the money that is paid out from social security has not only been adding to the national debt for many years now. Social Security is set to run PERMANENT deficits from now on and will be broke in 2036 or sooner (it already is broke, but that's how long the government will be able to keep the fiction alive)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vxfczmiwI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qBvBZTeI-8

[lester1/2jr]

I htnk we are seeing a real phenomenon right now with the blowback from the Paul Ryan medicare thing and it's basically this:

people don't think changing medicare or social security is going to save them or make them money, they think the government will take that savings and spend it on something else.

People figure the government is going to spend 4 trillion dollars next year. At LEAST is we maintain SS and medicare as they are they will hjave to spend some of that money on americans!!


bottom line: I support getting rid of most of what our government does but the military empire has got to go first. NO one is gonna bite on this otther stuff till that happens.

It's time for an "End the Empire" bill Mr Paul!

[sailingaway]

Ron can only do what he can get support to do. I am not sure there will be support for a pure opt out for the young, but there could WELL be support for people being able to individually direct their individual accounts sort of like IRAs. However, first you need to fund the payments to those who paid in in a way NOT needing taxes from the young... which is where cutting back on the empire comes in.

however, your friend should be reminded that the government simply stole it this time around, and how is that less responsible, having everyone go destitute at once, with no one to help?

[Agorism]

Because his solution is not sustainable. In fact, I'd rather bankrupt the U.S. and force a debt crisis than compromise with the likes of him.

In fact we're going to do that anyways. Democracies naturally eat themselves. Markets will correct poorly planned democracies like they become eventually.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

wait, .....

people are irresponsible with their money, being too immature to save for their retirement, so we should, with the threat of violence, save their money for them?


no no no .......

Most people don't save because it doesn't pay. Why doesn't it pay to save?? Our economic system is set up that way. It rewards those who go into debt, and punishes those who save their money. Putting your money in a savings account is equal to setting it on fire. The inflation rate is higher than the savings rate. Get rid of the Federal Reserve system and you will see people begin saving again.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

Another question is how did things play out before social security was implemented in the first place?

For the most part - people either saved enough or depended on family. And quite a lot did not save enough. It used to be the norm for grandparents to move in with the kids at retirement. Now they move to Florida.

What system was better?

Grandparents all being able to remain financially independent or families staying together?

[eric_cartman]

i would have more sympathy for his position if the government actually did a good job of saving money for peoples' retirement.... but the government has clearly failed to save the money they were supposed to. This guy thinks that people can't be trusted to save for themselves... but i think that the evidence proves that the government is even worse at saving. The government has spent the social security surplus for years... they don't save anything. At least if we let people control their own money, it's up to them to be responsible and save for themselves... and they can chose to spend the money or save the money... rather than being forced at the barrel of a gun to give that money to the government... even though the government just spends the money on wars and police instead of actually saving it like they were supposed to.

you can always try the violence and use of force argument that stefan molyneux uses a lot. Ask him if the thinks its acceptable to initiate the use of force and violence to steal money from a younger generation in order to give that money to the older generation. The young people being taxed right now, basically didn't have a choice about this whole system... they were born into it. The older generation about to retire was the wealthiest and most prosperous generation that ever lived.... did they have the right to borrow money from foreigners, using the unborn as their collateral... and force this younger generation to repay a debt that they did not incur? Should younger people be forced to repay a debt they didn't have anything to do with?

i suppose this guy thinks the ideal solution is to have a government run retirement program that actually saves the money, rather than having it operating like a ponsi scheme..... but then your next question has to be... if pigs have wings, could they fly? We gave the chance to run a retirement program... but instead of saving the money, they spent it. So we already tried doing it the way the socialists wanted, and it's not going to work... because the government can't be trusted. so i guess if your friend wants to keep trusting the government to do the right thing, he is welcome to be brainwashed and naive..... but for the rest of us living in reality who have witnessed what the government is actually doing, we understand that we cannot trust the government to be responsible and save money for us.

[Xenophage]

Whether or not people will save for the future is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you have the right to force them to save for the future, or if they have the right to live their lives and manage their finances however they want.

[Anti Federalist]

Another question is how did things play out before social security was implemented in the first place?

Real money existed that could be "really" saved.

You didn't have to run around getting into 50 schemes just to try and stay ahead of currency devaluation.

[Grubb556]

If property tax was abolished than old people could at least keep their homes.

[amy31416]

The thing that pisses me off about social security and programs like it, is that "liberals" don't think that minorities are smart enough to figure out how to save for the future and used people's philanthropic tendencies to force it through. The end result being that nobody thinks they need to do a damned thing for themselves because they can rely on the gov't to take care of them. (Exaggeration, I know.)

And so many minorities rubber stamp this notion by voting for Democrats, who think they're too effing stupid that they need a damned nanny.

[Koz]

I'm a financial planner and every day I work with people who are saving for their retirement. People should be free to do what they want instead of having thier money stolen from them by the government so they can spend it on whatever they want. Social security is bankrupt already, if it was not comingled with the general fund it would have ceased already.

[Chester Copperpot]

Social security is bankrupt and if not for its ability to use accounting tricks like 50% fractional reserve banking it would have died decades ago... Every dollar taken in for social security becomes $2. $1 for now and $1 of debt for later.... The $1 of debt for later is now being monetized because theres more money going out every month than coming in.

[VIDEODROME]

Since Ron Paul tends to want States to handle social issues could it include this? If people want Social Security or Socialized Medicine can't they try to setup a system locally at their State Level?

[Chester Copperpot]

Since Ron Paul tends to want States to handle social issues could it include this? If people want Social Security or Socialized Medicine can't they try to setup a system locally at their State Level?

sure

[Nic]

The fact that your friend wants to make it more expensive to hire employees by taxing businesses even more to fund that savings account shows that he has no clue when it comes to economics. You might as well talk to the wall.

[AceNZ]

Whether or not people will save for the future is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you have the right to force them to save for the future, or if they have the right to live their lives and manage their finances however they want.

Agree. It's called individual rights.

In addition, think about people on the margin; those who are barely earning enough to survive. If government takes some percentage of their incomes, then it makes it that much more difficult for those folks to get by. It also effectively increases employer costs, which means they could lose their job. If you exempt those at the low-end (which doesn't happen today for FICA), but allow them to get a pension anyway, then others are really paying for it.

Think about the days before social security. Believe it or not, most people were actually able to get by in their old age without arm-twisting by the government.

[ItsTime]

My wife got a letter from SS ensuring her that she will get back 75% of her money when she retires....... How is SS an investment or insurance? Wouldnt she be better to put her SS money into a savings account and get 100% plus interest than give it to the government and get back 75%?