Should Social Security be eliminated entirely?

[revots33]

I was thinking recently about social security/medicaid/medicare. A lot of my paycheck goes to these programs, and they are constantly being touted in the news as in "crisis". Meanwhile, some of my FICA withholdings are going to rich retirees on some golf course community somewhere. Plus I know several rich seniors who simply paid a lawyer to hide their assets so they could qualify for free health care under Medicare. So, instead of trying to fix the supposed crisis, would it be better/more efficient to just eliminate these programs entirely and stop taking the money from our paychecks?

I think my gut reaction is yes, I'd rather have that money and be responsible for my own retirement and health care when I'm older. But how would this impact those who really need the safety net provided by these programs?

Isn't there some other option, that would basically eliminate social security as we know it, but still provide for those who really need it to live on or get medical care? And why wouldn't something like this be a popular platform for a politician? I can't imagine people being against getting all that FICA money every week in their paychecks.

[awval999]

Everyone over the age of 65 automatically qualifies for Medicare, no matter what the income.

[Nielsio]

I think we share a different perspective on this. I see it thusly: the purpose of politicians is to represent all the people who are profitting from it (and this includes the politicians themselves).


Imagine you are the head of some govt department that manages this stuff. You can make plans for the future. One such option is scrapping the entire department based on the idea that it causes harm. Would you do it? Think about all those people around you and the powerful forces that creates. These are your buddies, your colleagues. Lots of moneys and interests are involved.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone over the age of 65 automatically qualifies for Medicare, no matter what the income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I was thinking Medicaid. Regardless, why is everyone eligible? Does this make sense to force me to pay for some rich retiree's doctor visits?

[Phil153]

Nielsio,

The people who make these decisions are those in congress, not those in the govt. department. As such, this is no different to a large business with a subsidiary run by managers.

Apart from that, you make a good point about efficiency being decided by people instead of the market.

OP,

The safety net needs to be there. Not so much for the young, but older people (the workers and taxpayers of years gone by) definitely both need and deserve it. If you wanted to do this, the only fair and orderly way to do this, that causes the least amount of suffering, is to slowly phase it out by abolishing free health care for current under 20s.

Still, I'm of the opinion that a decent percentage of the population cannot adequately care for themselves and plan for the future, and I think society is better off is we spend a negligible portion of resources (5% of the GDP) on protecting them. It's no different to a tribe which takes care of its sick and old members. Just on a larger scale.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you are the head of some govt department that manages this stuff. You can make plans for the future. One such option is scrapping the entire department based on the idea that it causes harm. Would you do it? Think about all those people around you and the powerful forces that creates. These are your buddies, your colleagues. Lots of moneys and interests are involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but imagine a true outsider ran for office on a platform of eliminating these programs entirely (except perhaps for the most basic coverage for the truly needy). My guess is that the American public would be outraged as the mere mention of eliminating SS/Medicare. But why? Wouldn't most people like to keep all that extra money they are working for? Don't people care that they are paying for some rich guy to go to the doctor for free, or to get a monthly SS check in addition to his investment returns /pension payments?

The whole concept seems out of whack to me. I am all for helping those who really need help, but I'm just not understanding why the average American not only doesn't mind social security, but seems outraged by any talk of eliminating it.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
But why? Wouldn't most people like to keep all that extra money they are working for? Don't people care that they are paying for some rich guy to go to the doctor for free, or to get a monthly SS check in addition to his investment returns /pension payments?

[/ QUOTE ]

The rich guy paid in too, and he paid in more than the poor guy, so the intent is that the system be progressive that way, rather than just banning rich people from getting benefits.

[ QUOTE ]
The whole concept seems out of whack to me. I am all for helping those who really need help, but I'm just not understanding why the average American not only doesn't mind social security, but seems outraged by any talk of eliminating it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are outraged at the idea of not getting anything back for what they already put in. Their best hope of getting back what they've been promised 20 years from now is for the plan to exist 20 years from now with contributing citizens putting money in. The odds that current contributors will actually receive their benefit will go way down if the contribution stream is turned off.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Imagine you are the head of some govt department that manages this stuff. You can make plans for the future. One such option is scrapping the entire department based on the idea that it causes harm. Would you do it? Think about all those people around you and the powerful forces that creates. These are your buddies, your colleagues. Lots of moneys and interests are involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, but imagine a true outsider ran for office on a platform of eliminating these programs entirely (except perhaps for the most basic coverage for the truly needy). My guess is that the American public would be outraged as the mere mention of eliminating SS/Medicare. But why? Wouldn't most people like to keep all that extra money they are working for? Don't people care that they are paying for some rich guy to go to the doctor for free, or to get a monthly SS check in addition to his investment returns /pension payments?

The whole concept seems out of whack to me. I am all for helping those who really need help, but I'm just not understanding why the average American not only doesn't mind social security, but seems outraged by any talk of eliminating it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, that's what Ron Paul is trying to do, isn't it?

My point would then be to realize what and who you are actually fighting against. You are fighting against all these special interest groups (which includes the bureaucracies and the politicians themselves), and the people in power who get this power because of this.

[mosdef]

BTW, there was an article about the failure of social security at mises.org recently:

http://www.mises.org/story/2586

I think that article is very poorly constructed and makes some misleading or downright false statements, but it makes a couple of good points.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Nah, no need to get rid of it, we'll just print the 50 trillion it's gonna cost us (along with the rest of the entitlement system). Hello $5000 bread.