Some real truths about Social Security

#1
utgibbs

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#1
Been looking into the propaganda surrounding the need to cut social security, and I've uncovered a few facts from the real world outside the back door.

First, the infamous charts lumping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together are farce. It is not Social Security which is expected to go through the roof it is the cost of health care. This is the real, long term budget problem regarding these programs. Should the government intervene with a single payer system, costs will go down dramatically (as will government. Think of the extra programs: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.) We predict NHS system health care costs will increase at a much lower rate than our own, just to rub salt in the wound (no pun intended).

Average Social Security check is $1,100 per month and more than 75% of the checks go to households earning less than $20,000 per annum / 90% going to households earning $40,000 per annum. They are going to those who need it most.

We've already raised the age to receive benefits on a program that is absolutely self-funding for at least 26 more years. In what is a highly regressive tax scheme. The 75-year deficit projection is, wait for it, 0.6% of GDP. Do I need to quote the growth of the military / war budget since the end of the Cold War?

Private pensions have largely collapsed in the interim; just to put the efficiency of government and the market into perspective.

It is health care and military expenditures which threaten to break the bank, not Social Security. These are the facts from the real world outside the backdoor.
 
#2
#2
before you go spouting off about how efficient the government is, why don't you do some research and tell us how much the Social Security bureaucracy costs. There's somewhere in the neighborhood of 71,000 people that work for the Administration.
 
#3
#3
utgibbs said:
Been looking into the propaganda surrounding the need to cut social security, and I've uncovered a few facts from the real world outside the back door.

First, the infamous charts lumping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together are farce. It is not Social Security which is expected to go through the roof it is the cost of health care. This is the real, long term budget problem regarding these programs. Should the government intervene with a single payer system, costs will go down dramatically (as will government. Think of the extra programs: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.) We predict NHS system health care costs will increase at a much lower rate than our own, just to rub salt in the wound (no pun intended).

Average Social Security check is $1,100 per month and more than 75% of the checks go to households earning less than $20,000 per annum / 90% going to households earning $40,000 per annum. They are going to those who need it most.

We've already raised the age to receive benefits on a program that is absolutely self-funding for at least 26 more years. In what is a highly regressive tax scheme. The 75-year deficit projection is, wait for it, 0.6% of GDP. Do I need to quote the growth of the military / war budget since the end of the Cold War?

Private pensions have largely collapsed in the interim; just to put the efficiency of government and the market into perspective.

It is health care and military expenditures which threaten to break the bank, not Social Security. These are the facts from the real world outside the backdoor.
Click to expand...

Will you add "scheme" to your lexicon along with "gorilla", "capital" and now I suppose the newly emerging "backdoor"?
 
#5
#5
utgibbs said:
Been looking into the propaganda surrounding the need to cut social security, and I've uncovered a few facts from the real world outside the back door.

First, the infamous charts lumping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid together are farce. It is not Social Security which is expected to go through the roof it is the cost of health care. This is the real, long term budget problem regarding these programs. Should the government intervene with a single payer system, costs will go down dramatically (as will government. Think of the extra programs: Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc.) We predict NHS system health care costs will increase at a much lower rate than our own, just to rub salt in the wound (no pun intended).

Average Social Security check is $1,100 per month and more than 75% of the checks go to households earning less than $20,000 per annum / 90% going to households earning $40,000 per annum. They are going to those who need it most.

We've already raised the age to receive benefits on a program that is absolutely self-funding for at least 26 more years. In what is a highly regressive tax scheme. The 75-year deficit projection is, wait for it, 0.6% of GDP. Do I need to quote the growth of the military / war budget since the end of the Cold War?

Private pensions have largely collapsed in the interim; just to put the efficiency of government and the market into perspective.

It is health care and military expenditures which threaten to break the bank, not Social Security. These are the facts from the real world outside the backdoor.
Click to expand...

What is misleading about that is that those statistics of .7% of GDP are for the present value of how much it would cost not in 75 years. It would be how much the "efficient government" would need to invest right now to cover those costs down the road. And since our government is so efficient and can balance a budget which takes the brains of a five year old.. Oh wait our debt is close to 100% of GDP. Anyways, we don't have 3.7 trillion dollars, the money that would need to be invested now, because the "efficient government" likes to shoot tomahawk missiles into the sand and pay Shontrale to sit at home and watch Maury. Also, for the love of common sense, our tax system is NOT REGRESSIVE. If you have any since at all about taxes and you make under 50,000 a year and have two kids you shouldn't have to pay taxes if you know what you are doing. Back to social security, the real number needed in the future to cover it is 24.9 trillion adjusted for inflation in the future.
 
#6
#6
P.S. just FYI, our "efficient government" spend 701 billions dollars on social security this year and "only" 689 billion on defense.
 
#7
#7
Most economists I have seen in person have said social security isn't the main problem, it's obamas health plan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#8
#8
Vols520 said:
Most economists I have seen in person have said social security isn't the main problem, it's obamas health plan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is a big problem with Medicare/Medicaid and rising healthcare costs. Many, many economists will tell you that. Social Security may have problems, but the heart of the issue would seem to lue in health care costs and the subsidies we provide. It's hard for me not to see it as unsustainable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#9
#9
Vols520 said:
Most economists I have seen in person have said social security isn't the main problem, it's obamas health plan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

exactly, because you can't just take 500 billion out of medicare, call it savings, and then spend it somewhere else. The only thing government is efficient at is manipulation of the language.
 
#10
#10
DefenseisDesire said:
What is misleading about that is that those statistics of .7% of GDP are for the present value of how much it would cost not in 75 years. It would be how much the "efficient government" would need to invest right now to cover those costs down the road. And since our government is so efficient and can balance a budget which takes the brains of a five year old.. Oh wait our debt is close to 100% of GDP. Anyways, we don't have 3.7 trillion dollars, the money that would need to be invested now, because the "efficient government" likes to shoot tomahawk missiles into the sand and pay Shontrale to sit at home and watch Maury. Also, for the love of common sense, our tax system is NOT REGRESSIVE. If you have any since at all about taxes and you make under 50,000 a year and have two kids you shouldn't have to pay taxes if you know what you are doing. Back to social security, the real number needed in the future to cover it is 24.9 trillion adjusted for inflation in the future.
Click to expand...

Social Security tax is highly regressive.

The federal system looks progressive, although in practice it is far less so.

I'd like to hear your ideas. Would you clarify the points you are trying to make?
 
#12
#12
I should add, we could shorten the real issue to a single statement:

Capital wants a piece of the Social Security pie.

When you cut away all the nonsense and all the propaganda, there is a huge pot of money sitting there the Welfare Dads (i.e. the investment class) want to play with.
 
#13
#13
TennTradition said:
There is a big problem with Medicare/Medicaid and rising healthcare costs. Many, many economists will tell you that. Social Security may have problems, but the heart of the issue would seem to lue in health care costs and the subsidies we provide. It's hard for me not to see it as unsustainable.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Without question health care costs are the problem. Without question there has been a propaganda campaign to lump social security in with them to make it look like it is "out of control."

It becomes imperative to look for solutions where we reduce our health care outlays relative to GDP. Since we pay the most per capita for health care by long margins, we have several real world models which could teach us how to be more efficient.
 
#14
#14
MG1968 said:
exactly, because you can't just take 500 billion out of medicare, call it savings, and then spend it somewhere else. The only thing government is efficient at is manipulation of the language.
Click to expand...

Then why do you valorize Capital which requires the government, which it controls, to do this?
 
#15
#15
gibbs wants a society where people have no responsibility for themselves.

They can partake in free government education, yet acquire no marketable skill because there are guaranteed wages.

They can partake in free government healthcare, but have no responsibility to live healthy lives so they don't become a burden on the system.

They have a right to a guaranteed government retirement plan, because individual private accounts are volatile and have no protections against risk taking.

Sounds great if you're a sheep, a sponge, or a waste of chromosomes. Count me out, I want nothing to do with this Gibbsian nightmare of collectivism.

Since I just watched "Firefly" and "Serenity", I'll consider myself one of the Browncoats.
 
#16
#16
MG1968 said:
gibbs wants a society where people have no responsibility for themselves.

Could not be more wrong. I want a society where the authentic free time of individuals unleashes creative forces unseen in human development. In other words, the responsible use of free time.

They can partake in free government education, yet acquire no marketable skill because there are guaranteed wages.

I'm the one who says education should be directly tied to the means of production.

They can partake in free government healthcare, but have no responsibility to live healthy lives so they don't become a burden on the system.

So YOU want to modify people's behavior! Obviously, the people living in signle payer system are living healthier lives than we are, as the metrics attest.

They have a right to a guaranteed government retirement plan, because individual private accounts are volatile and have no protections against risk taking.

Given the private pension schemes have failed so comprehensively of late, and left people with nothing, it seems rather ridiculous to argue given the real world outside the backdoor.

Sounds great if you're a sheep, a sponge, or a waste of chromosomes. Count me out, I want nothing to do with this Gibbsian nightmare of collectivism.

Since I just watched "Firefly" and "Serenity", I'll consider myself one of the Browncoats.

You could not choose better television. Shall we join forces and try to buy the rights for Nathan Fillion?
Click to expand...

Browncoat references will always endear you to utgibbs.

And Firefly is just another example of how Capital cannot recognize quality and is highly inefficient.

In addition, I find the crew on Serenity, despite some democracy issues with Mal, engaging in just the kind of responsible use of free time, creatively finding solutions for every day problems, that I am advocating.

Of course, you don't have to use these energies for petty theft. ;)
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
utgibbs said:
What did it spend on defense + war?

Game, Set, and Match.
Click to expand...

I thought those numbers included war. I got those figures from the official government budget website. If war was not included in defense I don't know what other category it would be in.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
utgibbs said:
Social Security tax is highly regressive.

The federal system looks progressive, although in practice it is far less so.

I'd like to hear your ideas. Would you clarify the points you are trying to make?
Click to expand...

Ok. I agree social security is more regressive than our federal income tax. However with the exception of manipulation and loopholes for corporatons I don't see how the FIT is not highly progressive.

The points I was trying to make are complicated ill admit. However on a projected graph by far the biggest costs in the future for the government will be medicare then SS. As u said before it will become insolvent in 26 years. This doesn't mean bankruptcy it just means that it will have to receive extra funds to keep from going under.

Using government calculators the fix appears simple. Raise the retirement age and have an income cap on who can receive funds. But this does not hit the core issue of how it is intrinsically wrong to do so. Im sure u know how social security actually has a negative return on the money you put into it.
 
#20
#20
therealUT said:
Here is a pretty concise and substantial report concerning both wars:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
Click to expand...

So since 2001, the government has spent 1.21 trillion dollars on the war. So 1.21 trillion divided by ten is 121 billions dollars a year. Much much less than social security and I'd imagine those numbers were included in the defense figures I'd mentioned earlier.
 
#21
#21
DefenseisDesire said:
So since 2001, the government has spent 1.21 trillion dollars on the war. So 1.21 trillion divided by ten is 121 billions dollars a year. Much much less than social security and I'd imagine those numbers were included in the defense figures I'd mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

Correct. I am all for ending Social Security. I'd rather invest the $6K I pay in every year. Even with a measly 5% average ROI, I would far exceed the monthly SS receipt that UTGibbs is touting ($1,100/month).
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
Correct. I am all for ending Social Security. I'd rather invest the $6K I pay in every year. Even with a measly 5% average ROI, I would far exceed the monthly SS receipt that UTGibbs is touting ($1,100/month).
Click to expand...

Amen brother, with average returns we'd all retire millionaires.
 
#23
#23
So I understand correctly, are we arguing that the SS ponzi scheme works without some sort of investment vehicle to increase the principal to cover the payouts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
So I understand correctly, are we arguing that the SS ponzi scheme works without some sort of investment vehicle to increase the principal to cover the payouts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, works real well. In fact, I have decided to just live paycheck to paycheck because I know that once I reach the age in which I can start receiving SS, my only worry will be rather to stick with Woodford and Basil Hayden's or move up to Pappy's full-time.
 
#25
#25
Once again a hate for Kapital clouds the vision. If one is concerned that SS tax is highly regressive, they should favor utilization of wealth growing tools for SS taxes. But no....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top