Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Rand Paul's Social Security bullshit

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,848

    Rand Paul's Social Security bullshit

    Supposed Libertarian Rand Paul is advocating increasing the age of eligibility to receive SS benefits (article follows below). In other words, screw over (again) the younger generation that has been paying (and will continue to pay) the highest SS taxes, for the benefit of the old febes drawing SS today – the febes who typically paid very little into the system relative to the benefits they draw.

    Keep in mind that SS taxes were very low until the 1980s; today, the total tax is almost 15 percent – on top of federal and other taxes. People in their 40s and younger today will pay enormous sums into the system and are assured of not even getting back what they paid in (given inflation, what they might have done with the money had it not been taken from them; the fact that they will likely die long before recouping a fraction of what they paid in).*

    Paul – the supposed Libertarian – said nothing about letting the younger generation opt out of SS – which many of us would love to do, even to the extent of agreeing to forgo all future benefits in return for not having to “contribute” any more from here on out.

    Just pay more – and get less.

    Screw Rand Paul.


    Here's the story:


    LOUISVILLE, Ky. – Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul said Sunday the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare may need to be raised for future recipients.

    But Paul, speaking during the first televised debate of the general election season with Democratic opponent Jack Conway, said he doesn't want to change those benefits for older people already receiving them. The debate was aired on "Fox News Sunday."

    "But we do have to admit that we have the baby boom generation getting ready to retire, and we're going to double the amount of retirees," Paul said. "And to put our head in the sand and just say we're just going to keep borrowing more money is not going to work. There will have to be changes for the younger generation."

    Major issues of the race thus far have been spending, taxes and the size of government.

    Paul is a favorite of the tea party with his positions for smaller government and a balanced budget. Conway, the state's attorney general, has also appealed to conservatives, describing himself as a fiscally responsible Democrat who understands why voters are frustrated about rising federal spending.

    Paul and Republican leaders have tried to paint Conway as a clone of the Obama administration.

    Conway said Sunday that he would have supported "some" of President Barack Obama's initiatives, including the health care overhaul. He said he would have voted against a $700 billion bailout program for troubled financial institutions that was started under President George W. Bush, a Republican.

    "There was not enough accountability in them," he said. "We had people getting bonuses after getting the bailouts."

  2. #2
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,486
    Here's an article about Rand Paul advocating increasing the age of eligibility to receive SS benefits. In other words, screw over (again) the younger generation that has been paying (and will continue to pay) the highest SS taxes, for the benefit of the old fucks drawing SS today - the coots who typically paid very little into the system relative to the benefits they will draw.
    Now I dont know if your system works the same way that ours does - and our ages of elegibility are being increased as well - but - it is us 'old fucks' who spent our working years paying for the SS payments of those 'old fucks' who went before us. All the 'younger' generation is doing is perpetuating the system which arose due to government mismanagement of the Social Service contributions made by the workers of the day. Instead of adding to the income, investing, and funding SS from the investment interest, successive governments used the income to try and directly finance Social Security payments. A well known recipe for disaster as outgoings would always exceed income.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  3. #3
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Now I dont know if your system works the same way that ours does - and our ages of elegibility are being increased as well - but - it is us 'old fucks' who spent our working years paying for the SS payments of those 'old fucks' who went before us. All the 'younger' generation is doing is perpetuating the system which arose due to government mismanagement of the Social Service contributions made by the workers of the day. Instead of adding to the income, investing, and funding SS from the investment interest, successive governments used the income to try and directly finance Social Security payments. A well known recipe for disaster as outgoings would always exceed income.

    Ken.
    Our system is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme; the benefits received by current retirees are financed directly by current payroll taxes on workers. In other words, the money extracted from now-retired coots was spent years ago. The only way they can get a check now is for government to hold up current workers.

    And: The way the system's set up, the younger you are, the worse the deal gets (just like the newer investors in a Ponzi scheme). SS taxes were much lower on current retirees; many paid so little that they receive everything they paid in within just a few years of going on the dole. But younger workers are screwed. Taxes today are much higher (15 percent) and no one in his right mind believes the program will still exist in 20 or 30 years. Even if it did, the returns are pitiful; a fraction of what was taken from you - all of it used to pay for the benefits of Greedy Geezers and fund other government rackets.

    A just reform would be to figure out a way to pay off the current Geezers (for example, by defunding the "defense" budget) and make the system voluntary for younger workers, who could opt out if they wish in return for renouncing any claim to future benefits.

  4. #4
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post

    Our system is an intergenerational Ponzi scheme; the benefits received by current retirees are financed directly by current payroll taxes on workers. In other words, the money extracted from now-retired coots was spent years ago. The only way they can get a check now is for government to hold up current workers.
    Yep, same as ours. And in a few years the 'young ones' paying now and moaning about the 'cost' will be the 'old ones' receiving SS checks paid for by the upcoming younger generation who, in their turn, will be moaning about the cost.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 10-04-2010 at 04:55 AM.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  5. #5
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    Yep, same as ours. And in a few years the 'young ones' paying now and moaning about the 'cost' will be the 'old ones' receiving SS checks paid for by the upcoming younger generation who, in their turn, will be moaning about the cost.

    Ken.
    The difference is the current generation pays (and will pay) much more - and probably receive nothing. The system is mathematically unsustainable. I think the ratio at the beginning of the program was something like a dozen workers for every retiree receiving a check. Shortly (within just a few years) there will be more people on the dole than workers paying in, at which point, the con is over. Either the benefits must be slashed dramatically or taxes raised enormously. Either way, the people who are currently in their 40s or younger are going to be left holding the proverbial bag.

    None of this is news. What is news is that Paul - son of the Libertarian icon and supposedly a Libertarian himself - is turning out to be another fraud. Because he advocates what the typical Republican would advocate. A Libertarian would say: "SS is both immoral and economically fraudulent. We need to find a way to close it down. For obvious practical reasons, we'll figure out a way to continue paying benefits to some current recipients (the very old/financially helpless who cannot do without and who depend on it) but we'll also work on phasing it out for younger recipients - and give younger workers the opportunity to opt out, if they wish to do so."

    What's disappointing is that he said none of those things.

  6. #6
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric
    The difference is the current generation pays (and will pay) much more - and probably receive nothing. The system is mathematically unsustainable. I think the ratio at the beginning of the program was something like a dozen workers for every retiree receiving a check. Shortly (within just a few years) there will be more people on the dole than workers paying in, at which point, the con is over. Either the benefits must be slashed dramatically or taxes raised enormously. Either way, the people who are currently in their 40s or younger are going to be left holding the proverbial bag.
    When I was working I was paying in about 20% of my salary, in 'taken from paycheck' tax, (Our PAYE system) for some 40 years. The current crop of payees are still paying about the same percentage. The monetary value is an irrelevance, so long as the percentage of salary remains the same i.e. in balance with cost of living, earnings etc., the impact is unchanged - earn 'X' amount and pay 20% in tax.

    As far as being an unsustainable system, they seem to have managed to keep it going for a long long time going back into Grandad's working years. But yes, I guess, ultimately you are right, it will either fail or be changed for an even more iniquitous system.

    Ken.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  7. #7
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    22,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken View Post
    When I was working I was paying in about 20% of my salary, in 'taken from paycheck' tax, (Our PAYE system) for some 40 years. The current crop of payees are still paying about the same percentage. The monetary value is an irrelevance, so long as the percentage of salary remains the same i.e. in balance with cost of living, earnings etc., the impact is unchanged - earn 'X' amount and pay 20% in tax.

    As far as being an unsustainable system, they seem to have managed to keep it going for a long long time going back into Grandad's working years. But yes, I guess, ultimately you are right, it will either fail or be changed for an even more iniquitous system.

    Ken.
    Here in the U.S., the tax rate was much lower for many decades from the program's inception in the 1930s through the 1980s.

    A person who retired in the '90s likely collected everything he paid in over the previous 30 years within 5-10 years of retirement. Thus, current benefits are welfare, no different than WIC and just as degrading.

    Today, SS taxes are much higher, so current workers pay in vastly more, both in percentage and real terms.

    Hence the outrage among younger workers, who rightly resent being fleeced to pay for the gilded retirement of Baby Boomers, at the expense of their own old-age financial security.

    If a younger worker with half a brain and a decent income were permitted to
    opt out - and could save/invest the money being taken from him to pay off Greedy Geezers - that young worker would end up much better off, financially, 30 years hence. He'd not only have more money, it would be his money - and he'd not be in the loathsome position of having to beg for welfare from the government at the expense of his children's well-being and liberty.

Similar Threads

  1. More info why social security is a bad investment
    By chiph in forum Survival/Economic Collapse
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2011, 12:53 PM
  2. The social security trust fund is of no economic value
    By chiph in forum Survival/Economic Collapse
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-11-2010, 07:52 AM
  3. Rand Paul wins KY primary
    By Eric in forum Tea Party Talk...
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-16-2010, 07:40 PM
  4. Social Security bankrupt in 2010?
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 06:29 AM
  5. Privatization of social security
    By grouch in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 09:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •