Should Social Security be eliminated entirely?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
Who the hell is talking about trading options for retirement?

[/ QUOTE ]
Boca keeps going back to it, either out of financial ignorance or to intentionally misdirect the discussion.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if boca knows that the options market is a zero-sum game (negative after commissions, like the rake in poker) while the stock market is positive-sum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bocablkr]You're not googling very well, most people lose money on options. Go talk to an economics professor and see what he says about it.[/bocablkr]

[bocablkr]

You have gotten way off course. You are also taking quotes out of context.

The original point was that the government needs to save for people's retirement because most people can't or won't do it properly by themselves. No one has proved otherwise. I never said " that nobody ever saves money', but the US has one of the lowest savings rate in the Western World.

I never said that people should be allowed to put their social security funds in options or any other high risk venture. I used that as an example to show that many people are not good at investing. Link - http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2003/20030327.html

Then I mentioned that people may piss and moan about paying those taxes but I pointed out that it is not really as bad as it seems because most salaries reflect that tax. I am not saying that your wages would drop now if the taxes were removed. I am saying that part of the reason you are making the salary you are is because of the tax. If the tax never existed your salary would probably not be as high as it is. You net would not be that much different than it is now with the tax. I said to take that to a college economics professor and see what he says (that makes someone a troll)?


Then you say 'You still have not answered the following question: If people need to delegate their long-term investment authority to the government why wouldn't they be better off delegating authority to someone else with a long-term time preference and competitive motivation to provide good returns (as opposed to government's short-term objectives and lack of competition)? If you can't provide an answer to this you have no basis for your argument.'

The government's responsibility is to protect the safety net by using the most secure investments. There is no such guarantee when using a private manager. If so, they would be using the same investments as the government. If you want to increase the interest rate - then you increase the risk. I am sure that they could tweak a little more out but as someone mentioned before the rate is close to 6%.

Invest your own money with a private fund manager and then you won't need social security. Using private managers would be a windfall in big commissions for the financial institutions (probably why Bush supports it).

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Invest your own money with a private fund manager and then you won't need social security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just accidentally make an argument for the elimination of social security? Isn't this what the rest of us have been saying all along?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont need economics courses to understand that employers have a dollar range for any given job. This range takes into account: salary, employer fica and other taxes, healthcare costs, retirement (401k cost), and any other benefits he or she chooses to offer to attract and keep good employees. Generally your salary is about 60 of the total employment cost. (if you make 60k, it is likely costing your employer 100k to employ you)

Now if tax rates go up in a huge fashion, and your take home pay drops.... and your employer decides to give you a raise to compensate, that money must come from somewhere. The most common solution is to raise prices.

Now, since he has given you a huge raise to compensate for the tax increase, your "takehome" income is at the same level, yet everyone has had to raise prices substantially to offset the wage increase. So now your paycheck buys less because everything costs more.

Going further...now your employer has higher prices, but less people can afford to buy the product. He now requires less employees to produce for demand.

Seems like econ 101 to me....maybe you skipped that course.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct. But my point is that people always think that if they didn't have to pay say x amount in taxes that they would be x amount better off. My point is that that is not completely correct. You will be better off but it will not be by the full x amount. Cost increases due to taxes have a way of filtering up through the system. Your salary does go up to some degree and prices and costs do as well. I am just saying that over time the net difference is not a great as people believe. Your total buying power now is not that much different than it would be in a world without the tax. If you disagree fine - I am not trying to be a troll just have a discussion.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invest your own money with a private fund manager and then you won't need social security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just accidentally make an argument for the elimination of social security? Isn't this what the rest of us have been saying all along?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost me on that one Mos. Most of the people on this forum are probably intelligent and capable of doing much better with their social security funds than the government is doing. However, we do not represent the country at large. The vast majority of people do not save properly.

Do you dispute that?

Therefore, in order to avoid the economic disaster of the 1930's the social security system was set up as a safety net. No one has shown that there is no longer a need for that safety net.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You have gotten way off course. You are also taking quotes out of context.

The original point was that the government needs to save for people's retirement because most people can't or won't do it properly by themselves. No one has proved otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flipping the burden of proof. Make claim, force others to prove the counterfactual. Standard.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Invest your own money with a private fund manager and then you won't need social security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you just accidentally make an argument for the elimination of social security? Isn't this what the rest of us have been saying all along?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost me on that one Mos. Most of the people on this forum are probably intelligent and capable of doing much better with their social security funds than the government is doing. However, we do not represent the country at large. The vast majority of people do not save properly.

Do you dispute that?

Therefore, in order to avoid the economic disaster of the 1930's the social security system was set up as a safety net. No one has shown that there is no longer a need for that safety net.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status quo is justified because it is the status quo. If you think you need a safety net, then feel free to participate in some safety net scheme. You haven't shown any justification for forcing others into one. "People don't do the things I think they should" is not a justification.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Lost me on that one Mos. Most of the people on this forum are probably intelligent and capable of doing much better with their social security funds than the government is doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we should be allowed to opt out of SS, shouldn't we? Wouldn't it be better for society if we were allowed to facilitate our own retirement affairs by achieving more than the minimum?

[ QUOTE ]
However, we do not represent the country at large. The vast majority of people do not save properly.

Do you dispute that?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said that people don't save "properly" which is an entirely subjective term, so I can't really dispute it. If you think "proper" retirement saving is sacrificing 12% of pay for a minimal benefit, then by all means save "properly" and encourage others to do so. Meanwhile, let us make our own plans and sell the plan design to others that think our design is better. I don't know why you think that government has somehow designed a universally optimal plan design.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in order to avoid the economic disaster of the 1930's the social security system was set up as a safety net. No one has shown that there is no longer a need for that safety net.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. You need to justify why you have to take away a chunk of my earnings and force me to participate in your plan. So far you have come up with:

1. I am too young (unsubstantiated and irrelevent).
2. I have not taken enough economics courses (unsubstantiated).
3. Investing in options is risky (irrelevant).
4. We will have an economic disaster if we don't take 12% of pay from everybody (unsubstantiated).

Can you do any better than that?

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have gotten way off course. You are also taking quotes out of context.

The original point was that the government needs to save for people's retirement because most people can't or won't do it properly by themselves. No one has proved otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flipping the burden of proof. Make claim, force others to prove the counterfactual. Standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, no AC hijacks.

I am not flipping anything. I just don't post links to the obvious. Anyone using google can get hundreds of links that support my assertion. I am not forcing anyone to dispute this but I will gladly read any links to the contrary.