202. BoomerJeff - May 7, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
So you guys are afraid of the possibility of private savings programs cheating the poor. But you have no concern at all that SS is guaranteed to cheat those same poor.
Your faith in government may be stronger than my faith in God. I'm ashamed
203. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 11:09 AM PT
"And shame on the lawmakers for doing shit about SS reform."
And shame on the current law that allows a long time worker to be deprived of their pension. I hope she wins treble damages for malice on her employer's part.
204. msgreer - May 7, 1999 - 11:23 AM PT
AuNatural
My friend has excellent lawyers.
She has one on her team who all would know by name. He has volunteered his services.
This story of hers was front page news in our paper.And not for one day, it still is writtten about.
There were hundreds of us in the community who wrote letters to the newspaper. In a Sunday edition of our paper (owned by NYT) the editor's decided this was such an important community event, all letters were about her.
Depositions are still being taken.
When it does get to court they will have to deal with seating about 100 nurses.
I will keep you informed.
205. bubbaette - May 7, 1999 - 11:24 AM PT
Sorry Boomer
I've never been elected to any office. If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
206. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
Jade,
Well, I'm never sure what "middle class" is, these days. Median household income is $37,000, yes? In a two-SS payment family, I suppose they *could* be middle class. But then, I'm one of those who can't figure how anyone lives on less than $80K/year, so what do I know?
And then there's the fact that many elderly have to strip themselves of assets to qualify for medical benefits, and the clever things that are done in that light. Or the fact that you have only mentioned "income", not assets--in the cases where they haven't stripped themselves of assets, their home constitutes a major portion of their net worth. And the fact that for *many* parts of the country, that "less than $21K" times two is a very nice income that all their neighbors live on, too. Again, I speak of far-off places beyond my ken, but I believe this is not an astounding assertion.
But assume that you are correct--that 75% of the elderly are living in desperate poverty. Fine. I've said I have no objection to people who need Social Security receiving it. That's what an insurance program is for.
So prove that we need to make major changes to the SS program (including removing the income cap) , if all that is needed is to keep the wolf away from the door is to ensure that 75% of the elderly are paid $21K a year.
207. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
"75% of our seniors have incomes under $21K/year."
Most seniors can make this money stretch twice as far as most workers. Their mortgages costs are by and large paid. In Califrnia, Prop 13 even protects their property taxes from climbing. If it is a small house, keep it. If it is a large house, sell it, move into something small and pocket the difference tax free. Or use the equity to leverage deductable low interest loans.
How much of that $21K is taxable? How much does a subsidy like Medicare add to it?
$21K doesn't sound like much, but lots of *families* live on $21K *taxable* incomes, with NO home equity to fall back on and manage.
If they needed more they should have saved. Seeing "impoverished seniors" *ought* to make one want to save more money so as to avoid that fate. Or to plan on working longer. Instead it makes people demand that the government take money from the next generation to negate their own shortsightedness.
Many seniors live *very comfortably* on less than $21K, thank you, so don't give me this ration of shit.
208. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 11:28 AM PT
BoomBoom;
I hope this post catches you in a rare moment of lucidity.
It's not that we're afraid of a private savings or investment program; indeed, everyone in America is perfectly free to invest their money in whatever manner they see fit. Heck, they can invest their money in lottery tickets or the Kung Pao tables in Vegas.
Unfortunately, some people (and this cuts across all economic levels)are unable to adequately save or invest for the future. They end up with nothing through bad luck, stupidity, carelessness, inability, or some combination of factors. SS provides a modest safety net for those who haven't adequately prepared for their futures.
Even if you dismiss the argument above and assert a form of social Darwinism, the claims being made by the privatization advocates simply are outlandish. They don't take into account admin and managerial fees. Nor, do they even remotely suggest that this money is at risk.
209. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 11:29 AM PT
"When it does get to court they will have to deal with seating about 100 nurses."
I bet it is settled out of court.
210. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 11:33 AM PT
AuN;
"Their mortgages costs are by and large paid."
Cite, please.
"If they needed more they should have saved. Seeing "impoverished seniors" *ought* to make one want to save more money so as to avoid that fate. Or to plan on working longer. Instead it makes people demand that the government take money from the next generation to
negate their own shortsightedness."
Hey, points for honesty. You're still wrong.
"Many seniors live *very comfortably* on less than $21K, thank you, so don't give me this ration of shit."
Oh, yeah. $21K goes a long way in South Dakota.
211. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:36 AM PT
CalGal:
"All of you who are touting SS as a way to protect the poor....remember that the only reason it gets support is because it's a middle class entitlement."
No, it "gets support" because most people think it's a good idea.
There are lots of entitlement programs for which only a small minority of the population qualifies but which enjoy broad support amoung voters in general.
" And as I said earlier, the objections of the working wealthy ($100K and up) are small potatoes overall. But if you wonder why people in that income class think SS is a joke, there you go."
Yes, I do wonder why they think it's a "joke." You certainly haven't offered any legitimate reason for such an opinion. But I don't think rich people who resent SS do so because they think it's a "joke;" they resent it because it forces them to subsidize the non-rich. Too bad.
212. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Elliot,
"Rich" people don't resent social security at all. They generally aren't paid salary and so don't have to pay it.
And I don't think the working wealthy resent it all that much, provided that no nonsense starts about removing the income cap.
And enough of the "millions and millions" bullshit. If the average American were as socially minded and altruistic as you claim, you wouldn't have nearly as much to bitch about. And you'd probably be married.
213. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
CalGal:
"Take off the income cap and the contributions of the upper income folks become substantial, rather than a reasonable tax."
No, removing the income cap would eliminate the regressive aspect of the payroll tax, which unfairly burdens lower- and middle-income workers.
"At which point it becomes relevant to wonder what they are getting for it."
They get what they're entitled to.
214. arkymalarky - May 7, 1999 - 11:45 AM PT
If SS were remotely negotiable it wouldn't be called the third rail. The truth of the matter is that only Libertarians seriously oppose it (biting my keyboard to prevent gratuitous Libertarian swipe), though lots of folks talk about various ways to change it.
215. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 11:47 AM PT
Elliot,
It doesn't unfairly burden them. It is *for* them. And I fully support it being paid to them.
However, you are now going to move from ensuring the elderly have enough money to live comfortably to income redistribution--which seems to be the only justification for removing the income cap. Hell, let them have *more* than they ever made in their life!
I've always been curious as to what would happen if someone *seriously* suggested removing the income cap. Sure, it's not very many people who would squawk. But it includes all the columnists in America.
216. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
CalGal:
"And I don't think the working wealthy resent it all that much,"
No, I don't think they do, either
"provided that no nonsense starts about removing the income cap."
I don't care if they'd resent it. Their aren't enough of them for it to matter much. And removing the income cap is not "nonsense."
"And enough of the "millions and millions" bullshit."
Enough of your "enough" bullshit. Stop being such a "whiny moralizing motherfucker."
" If the average American were as socially minded and altruistic as you claim, you wouldn't have nearly as much to bitch about."
I don't make any claims about the altruism of the American people that aren't reflected in the way they vote and behave.
"And you'd probably be married."
I can't legally marry. If you weren't such a complete fuck-up, you'd probably have a life.
217. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 11:48 AM PT
Arky,
"If SS were remotely negotiable it wouldn't be called the third rail."
Yep. And it's not because it benefits the poor, either. (Not that you're saying it is due to that.)
However, it is due to Libertarians stretching the debate that there is a growing interest in other options. So even if the Libs don't get their way, they changed the playing field.
218. vonKreedon - May 7, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Elliot - Cal's "And you'd probably be married." was a reference to the fact that the American electorate has still not given you the legal right to marry who you want. It was supportive of you and you missed it.
219. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:50 AM PT
CalGal:
"It doesn't unfairly burden them."
Yes, it does. It's a hugely regressive tax.
"However, you are now going to move from ensuring the elderly have enough money to live comfortably to income redistribution."
No, the current SS scheme is already substantially redistributive. It should become more so.
220. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:51 AM PT
vonKreedon:
Nothing CalGal says is supportive of me. (And I wouldn't have it any other way)
221. vonKreedon - May 7, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
Elliot - It is obvious that you would not have it any other way, I'm just pointing out that occasionally it is anyway.
222. elliot803 - May 7, 1999 - 11:56 AM PT
CalGal:
"However, it is due to Libertarians stretching the debate that there is a growing interest in other options. So even if the Libs don't get their way, they changed the playing field."
The most that will happen is fiddling at the edges. Perhaps people will be allowed to direct a small portion of their contributions to private retirement accounts. The payroll tax may be increased, or means testing of benefits enhanced, or the income cap raised, or the retirement age raised, or some combination of those things, to ensure the long-term solvency of the program. But Libertarian fantasies about a dramatic change in SS or a full-scale rollback of government-run social welfare for the elderly is just that--a fantasy.
223. arkymalarky - May 7, 1999 - 12:00 PM PT
I agree with Elliot's Message #222. That's all that's ever been seriously discussed and any effort to do much of anything at all is generally met with resistance. And I don't think Libertarians have had anything to do with that at all. A lot of the ideas being kicked around have been around a while.
224. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 12:05 PM PT
"Oh, yeah. $21K goes a long way in South Dakota."
Probably a lot farther than is does in LA, which is my frame of reference. You're not advocating help for the small number of people who have landed in poverty. You're arguing for guarentees of affluence that exceeds the daily living standard of people who are not poor.
225. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
vK,
Yes, thanks for noticing.
Arky,
I think it's entirely possible that the growing Lib momentum causes people to think outside the box, which is what causes the new ideas to come forth--not necessarily by the Libs themselves.
You are claiming that the growing Lib movement causes change in the debate towards the center. I think it has. This is irrelevant to whether or not their ideas in and of themselves are any good.
In fact, that is the primary benefit of the libs--the debate stretches as a result of their input. I find that far more interesting than their ideas.
226. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
oops--
"You are claiming that the growing Lib movement causes change in the debate towards the center. "
s/be
"You are claiming that the growing Lib movement causes no change in the debate towards the center."
227. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 12:09 PM PT
Sigh. There is so much misinformation in this thread that I don't know where to begin. Even though I've been travelling the last several days and haven't seen my hubby in that time, I will try to get on line from home tonight and see if I can't straighten out some of this.
Let me start out by suggesting that there is a lot of data available on social security on the web and here is a good place to start.
228. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
AuN;
I was being facetious.
$21K is not a good lifestyle for any senior in any state. It's less painful in some states, in others it is impossible. I think you also ignore the fact that seniors very often have expenses that younger folks don't have.
The fact remains that SS is not intended as a retirement pension. If you rely on SS as your only means of income in retirement---you're going to be in bad shape.
229. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 12:22 PM PT
Jade,
"The fact remains that SS is not intended as a retirement pension. "
Agreed. Too many people think of it as such, though.
230. arkymalarky - May 7, 1999 - 12:25 PM PT
"In fact, that is the primary benefit of the libs--the debate
stretches as a result of their input. I find that far more
interesting than their ideas."
But again, a lot of the ideas being tossed around wrt SS were developed well before Libertarians had begun to have even a small voice, and the fact is Libertarians still don't get a lot of attention. They're overrepresented in the Fray for some reason.
231. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 12:40 PM PT
Caligala;
I can't control people's perceptions. Many people think that their vote doesn't count or that GOFP policies make sense, too.
232. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 12:52 PM PT
"0f the 20.8 million households headed by older persons in 1995, 78% were owners and 22% were renters. The median family income of older
homeowners was $21,627. The median family income of older renters was $10,151.
"About 53% of homes owned by older persons in 1995 were built prior to 1960 (35% for younger owners) and 6% had physical problems."
"Housing of the Elderly," Statistical Brief 94-33, US Census Bureau.
"A majority of seniors own their homes and wish to remain there. Home ownership provides maximum privacy and control over one's life and, if
mortgage free, may be the least expensive form of housing.
"Some senior home owners face financial problems due to the fact that their assets are almost completely tied to the equity in their homes. Data from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shows that over 20 per cent of home owners with relatively low incomes (i.e., $15,000 -
$20.000) own houses valued at $100,000 or more. As property values continue to rise, so may municipal property taxes. With declining interest rates, investment income on which many seniors rely, cannot keep up with these rising costs. These seniors need to find ways to convert the high equity locked into their houses into cash that can be used for current expenses (i.e., maintain properties, entertain, travel, or just live from day to day free of worry)."
"Shelter And Beyond: The Housing Needs Of Seniors"
Position Paper, B.C. Seniors' Advisory Council, June 1993
233. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 12:55 PM PT
Very good, AuN.
Supports my points.
234. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 1:15 PM PT
"But again, a lot of the ideas being tossed around wrt SS were developed well before Libertarians had begun to have even a small voice,"
LOL! they had a huge voice. They were much closer to mainstream and were called *liberals*.
"and the fact is Libertarians still don't get a lot of attention."
Argue with Reason, Cato, Heartland, and a host of other libertarian think tanks. It's not the liberals or conservatives leading the charge for ending the drug war. It's the libs. They got medical marijuana passed. It was the libs who should get credit for ending affirmative action in CA. The Repugs climbed on board after the initiative started looking like a winner. The libs also get credit for stopping the "know your customer" banking rules among many other things.
"They're overrepresented in the Fray for some reason."
They are *underrepresented* in the Fray relative to the internet as a whole. You obviously have a very narrow exposure to the internet to say this.
235. AzureNW - May 7, 1999 - 2:23 PM PT
ffffttttt.
236. arkymalarky - May 7, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
"LOL! they had a huge voice. They were much closer to mainstream and were called *liberals*."
Nono, Au, the LOL comes *after* that remark!
"They are *underrepresented* in the Fray relative to the internet as a whole. You obviously have a very narrow exposure to the internet to say this."
I was referring to the nation, not the internet. You obviously have a very narrow exposure to national politics to say this. The percentage of regular Fraygrants who identify themselves as Libertarians is greater than the percentage of voters nationwide who identify themselves as Libertarians.
Where you got the idea I was speaking of the internet, I don't know, but it seems to be a common Libertarian condition to misread. That's why I believe a crash course in reading comprehension would go a long way toward a cure.
The fact is, Libertarians are not a major force in politics even now, though I'll grant you they are growing. I know they succeeded with Ventura in Minnesota, but he's not exactly the kind of candidate they need to impress folks that it's worth voting for a Libertarian in the next general election. My personal feeling is that once people get a better view of what Libertarian politics is all about, what interest Libertarians are generating now will diminish considerably and they will be absorbed back into the Republican Party where they belong. I don't pretend to have any insight wrt that, though.
237. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 2:44 PM PT
thoughtful
I was just about to reference that site, but you beat me to it.
However, there is a lot of info there, and I don't expect everyone to plow though it all, so I may be pulling selected excerpts.
238. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 2:47 PM PT
bubbaette
“By-the-way, I've paid much more in car insurance than I am ever likely to receive in pay-outs.”
I'm curious why you would make this statement. Does it mean you think that SS is something like insurance?
(As an aside, some people think they buy car insurance to pay for damage to their car if they crack it up. This comprises only a small portion of the premium. The more important reason is that you might hit someone, hurt them badly, and owe hundreds of thousands of dollars. This happens every day. If it happens to you *ever*, you will probably find that you get more out than you paid in.)
239. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 2:52 PM PT
bubbaette
“*Actualily speaking, most social security beneficiaries -- even those who contributed at the highest rate -- get back far more in benefits than they ever paid in contributions.”
This is often true of Ponzi type schemes. But what was true in the past, is no longer true.
Also, your statement was misleading, although I don't think intentionally so. It may be true that “most” people who paid in SS taxes got back far more than they paid in, but my guess is that 30% or so got back zero. This paints a different picture that your opening sentence.
(Let me emphasize that the 30% is a SWAG. If anyone cares, I might be able to look into it.)
240. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 3:10 PM PT
"(As an aside, some people think they buy car insurance to pay for damage to their car if they crack it up. This comprises only a
small portion of the premium. The more important reason is that
you might hit someone, hurt them badly, and owe hundreds of
thousands of dollars. This happens every day. If it happens to you *ever*, you will probably find that you get more out than you paid in.)"
This is often true of Ponzi schemes. Actually, insurance is more of a Ponzi scheme than SS and much more insidious.
241. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 3:15 PM PT
JadeGold
Car insurance is a huge ripoff. There is no competition among insurance companies in my area. They all want to charge exorbitant premiums to the lowest risk drivers and refuse to even offer a policy to higher risk drivers. Since the government requires that everyone have car insurance, the consumer has no leverage at all. If I had a choice I would carry no liability car insurance and all and take my chances.
242. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 3:16 PM PT
"and all" = "at all"
243. JadeGold - May 7, 1999 - 3:20 PM PT
Grey;
Gee, I wouldn't go that far. Fortunately, I have a great auto insurance company---USAA.
The risk I see with insurance companies is that they will take your money and should you make a claim--they can arbitrarily decide whether or not to pay.
244. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 3:53 PM PT
Grey;
In California it is even worse. Not even are you required to buy, but the companies themselves are immune from state antitrust laws.
245. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:10 PM PT
Greystoke
“ There is no competition among insurance companies in my area. They all want to charge exorbitant premiums to the lowest risk drivers and refuse to even offer a policy to higher risk drivers.”
I don't believe you.
“ Since the government requires that everyone have car insurance, the consumer has no leverage at all.”
Technically not true. The government has passed laws that require financial responsibility. How you meet that is up to you, but in practical terms, this means having insurance.
“ If I had a choice I would carry no liability car insurance and all and take my chances.”
In other words, if you seriously hurt someone, they'd be out of luck? You actually admit you are irresponsible? No wonder we have to have laws.
246. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:11 PM PT
JadeGold
“The risk I see with insurance companies is that they will take your money and should you make a claim--they can arbitrarily decide whether or not to pay.”
This is bullshit (but you probably already knew that.)
247. BoomerJeff - May 7, 1999 - 4:13 PM PT
Please note the following from the SS www site...
"HOW DO YOU QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS:
When you work and pay Social Security taxes (called FICA on some pay stubs), you earn Social Security credits. Most people earn the maximum of four credits per year.
The number of credits you need to get retirement benefits depends on your date of birth. If you were born in 1929 or later, you need 40 credits (10 years of work)...If you're like most people, you will earn many more credits than you need to qualify for Social Security.
HOW MUCH WILL YOUR RETIREMENT BENEFIT BE?
Your benefit amount is based on your earnings averaged over most of your working career. Higher lifetime earnings result in higher benefits. If you have some years of no earnings or low earnings, your benefit amount may be lower than if you had worked steadily. "
There it is, the promise from your government. Nowhere does it say that your benefits will be cut or deleted if you are "wealthy." In fact, it says that if you earned more during your career your benefit will be MORE!!! Get it??? The promise from your government is that if you are "wealthy" your benefit payment will be HIGHER.
This has been the SS party line for 6+ decades. This has been the position of every president since SS began, except for Bill Clinton. So how do you guys justify simply changing the deal after people have paid into the system for their entire lives? How can you do such a thing?
Once again, you would be justifiably outraged if New York Life or Citibank changed the deal on someone after they had paid into a savings program all their life. Why are you not outraged at Bill Clinton for suggesting that this 66 year old promise need not be kept?
248. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:15 PM PT
AuNaturel
“In California it is even worse. Not even are you required to buy, but the companies themselves are immune from state antitrust laws.”
Immunity from anti-trust has nothing to do with being in California. It arises from the McCarran-Ferguson legislation (c. 1943), passed in light of the SEUA decision. Until that date, it was believed that insurance companies were exempt from anti-trust. The SEUA decision changed that, so Congress passed a law to provide that which was presumed. Do you know that the exemption is intended to help the consumer?
(For the nit-pickers, there are some situations, in Illinois for a number a years, where insurance companies were subject to anti-trust. And insurance companies are completely immune form anti-trust; they recently lost a court case and paid out many millions.)
249. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:18 PM PT
JadeGold
“This is often true of Ponzi schemes. Actually, insurance is more of a Ponzi scheme than SS and much more insidious.”
You are insistent on demonstrating that you are clueless about insurance and Ponzi schemes. There is one example I can think of where insurance would have resembled a Ponzi scheme. A company applied for a license to issue insurance to municipalities on a basis comparable to SS. But, thankfully, the insurance regulators saw it for the fraudulent scheme that it was, and didn't allow it to start up.
250. BoomerJeff - May 7, 1999 - 4:20 PM PT
Car insurance, or any other casualty insurance (fire, theft, hurricane, flood) is in no way similar to Social Security. Assertions that SS is should be measured by the same criteria as casualty insurance are absurd. Why not compare SS to your internet ISP? it makes just as much sense.
251. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:22 PM PT
elliot803
CG "It doesn't unfairly burden them."
Elliot803 ”Yes, it does. It's a hugely regressive tax.”
Your statement suggests that you presume that regressive taxes are unfair. You need to support this; I don't think it's true, but you might be using an odd definition of “fair”. Or “burden”. Or “them”. Or “It”.
252. BoomerJeff - May 7, 1999 - 4:26 PM PT
FTC
it depends on what your definition of "it" is...
253. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:28 PM PT
BoomerJeff
“Car insurance, or any other casualty insurance (fire, theft, hurricane, flood) is in no way similar to Social Security. Assertions that SS is should be measured by the same criteria as casualty insurance are absurd.”
I agree. However, the government has used the word insurance to try to give SS an imprimatur it doesn't deserve. The insurance industry has enough image problems (many of them self-inflicted) without what's left of their good name being dragged down by leaving the impression that SS is something like insurance.
254. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:29 PM PT
BoomerJeff
Knowing Elliot, I wouldn't presume that his definitions match those in use by most of us.
255. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:31 PM PT
JadeGold
“Right. 75% of our seniors have incomes under $21K/year. Yeah, that's middle class.”
Including or excluding SS, Medicare and other government benefits?
Including or excluding pension payments?
256. jadegold - May 7, 1999 - 4:32 PM PT
FritoCheese;
Often, insurance companies will refuse to pay claims as it is cheaper to litigate and wear down claimants.
But you already knew this.
257. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:37 PM PT
In Message #172 vonKreedon says:
“Regarding how much the rich are being ripped off by SS, I don't pay SS on my income above $65,000.”
You will if you earn over 65K this year. The wage base is 70,800. You also did if you earned over 65K last year, when the wage base was 68,400.
258. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:38 PM PT
In Message #138 CalGal says:
“The problem is that Social Security is *not* presented as insurance, but rather as a retirement plan.”
By whom?
259. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:40 PM PT
jadegold
Oh I see. You don't know the meaning of the word “arbitrary”.
Let's see, “arbitrary”, “insurance”, and “Ponzi”. Anymore for today?
260. BoomerJeff - May 7, 1999 - 4:41 PM PT
FTC
By the government. see my #247
261. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 4:42 PM PT
me: "If I had a choice I would carry no liability car insurance at all and take my chances."
FreeToChoose: "In other words, if you seriously hurt someone, they'd be out of luck? You actually admit you are irresponsible? No wonder we have to have laws."
FTC
I was under the impression that you had Libertarian leanings. Apparently not when it comes to your bread and butter, though.
Government mandated insurance: GOOD
Freedom of choice: BAD (and IRRESPONSIBLE)
262. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:44 PM PT
jadegold
So let's imagine that you accidentally bump into someone while driving, and they “claim” to have whiplash and “claim” you owe them $250,000. Do you want the insurance company to pay this, or do you want a court of law to decide how much is a fair recovery?
When a court awards damages covered under an insurance policy, can you give me examples where the insurance company decided not to pay?
263. jadegold - May 7, 1999 - 4:45 PM PT
FritoCheese;
You know this.
Insurance is a Ponzi scheme. Claims are paid from the premiums of others.
Further, insurance companies can arbitrarily decide not to pay claimants for legitimate claims; opting to litigate the claim to a smaller amount or with the hope that the claimant will go away.
264. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Greystoke
“Government mandated insurance: GOOD”
Point me to where I said this. I didn't.
Libertarians support freedom AND responsibility. Driving a vehicle with the potential for creating harm without the financial ability to pay for that harm is irresponsible. If you can provide a way to be responsible without an insurance policy, I'm in favor of it.
265. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 4:47 PM PT
Surely we should have hashed through this in the Social Security thread. And yet I recall it was largely moribund for its brief moment in the Fray.
266. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 4:48 PM PT
me: "There is no competition among insurance companies in my area. They all want to charge exorbitant premiums to the lowest risk drivers and refuse to even offer a policy to higher risk drivers."
FTC: "I don't believe you."
That is my impression based on personal experience and conversations with others. *I* even got turned down by an insurance company. Up to that point the only claims I'd ever filed were for a broken windshield and a relatively minor collision with a deer. I'd never had a traffic violation either. I guess my money's just not good enough for some insurance companies.
267. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:49 PM PT
jadegold
“Insurance is a Ponzi scheme. Claims are paid from the premiums of others.”
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand either insurance or Ponzi schemes. You don't need to supply further evidence.
“Further, insurance companies can arbitrarily decide not to pay claimants for legitimate claims; opting to litigate the claim to a smaller amount or with the hope that the claimant will go away.”
Your ignorance is breath-taking. I hope you have an area of expertise.
268. jadegold - May 7, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
FritoCheese;
Seeing how you work in the Ponzi Scheme industry, your opinion is hardly objective.
269. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:51 PM PT
CalGal
Yes.
Unbelievable.
More discussion of SS in the gray thread than in the SS thread. At least it is arguably on topic. The general discussion of insurance, and the continued display of ignorance on this subject by the resident liberals is appalling, but not really on subject. Someone suggest a better thread, and if the instigators will go, I'll follow and clear up their misconceptions.
270. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 4:52 PM PT
me characterizing FTC: “Government mandated insurance: GOOD”
FTC: "Point me to where I said this. I didn't."
You said: "No wonder we have to have laws."
I interpreted that to mean you are in favor of government mandated insurance.
271. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:52 PM PT
jadegold
“Seeing how you work in the Ponzi Scheme[sic] industry, your opinion is hardly objective.”
I'm not claiming it is objective. I'll claim it is knowledgeable.
272. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 4:55 PM PT
Greystoke
“You said: "No wonder we have to have laws."
I interpreted that to mean you are in favor of government mandated insurance.”
You interpreted wrong. Understanding why we have laws is waaaay different than supporting them. I understand why we have laws making it illegal for me to sell you a 2 inch diameter orange. That doesn't mean I support it.
273. Greystoke - May 7, 1999 - 4:56 PM PT
FTC
"You interpreted wrong. Understanding why we have laws is waaaay different than supporting them. "
OK. If you say so.
274. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
BoomerJeff
“By the government. see my #247”
Yes, I know what the government claims. They also claim “Social Security was never intended to be your only source of income when you retire or become disabled, or your family's only income if you die.” They also hint that it is an insurance program.
But I was curious who CG was referring to: the government, or the newspapers, or others.
275. jadegold - May 7, 1999 - 5:05 PM PT
FritoCheese;
I bow to your knowledge of and participation in the Ponzi Scheme industry.
276. ProfEmeritus - May 7, 1999 - 5:12 PM PT
CalGal
You asked for an estimate of the social security tax effects of my proposed income ceilings in Message #79. I have done a "back of the envelope" ballpark figure estimate - based on median (not average) income. On the assumption that present trust fund income and outpayments are in balance (actually there is 10%-12% surplus for OASDI now), the ceilings I proposed would reduce SS taxes by at least 50%. The ceilings I suggested were $40K for single recipients and $50K for married.
277. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 5:17 PM PT
Prof,
Thanks!
Would your proposal limit retirees to that income total? In other words, if a retiree's income was $32,000, he or she would receive $8000 from the government and no more?
278. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:23 PM PT
jadegold
Instead of flaying your ignorance, why not consider answering my question in Message #255
279. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
FTC,
Here's a US News article that I've linked in before (it's from last April).
"One in three seniors was poor in 1959; today that number is 1 in 10, making the elderly the age group least likely among Americans to be impoverished. Two thirds of today's Social Security recipients count on the system for at least half their income."
If that's true, it surely doesn't seem to be an insurance plan, but a retirement plan? Certainly a significant supplement to it.
"'The beauty about social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound,' Nobel economist Paul Samuelson quipped famously in 1967, noting that it relies on a growing population and rising incomes to pay each generation of retirees more than they paid into the system. 'A growing nation,' he concluded, 'is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.'"
This seems contradicted by the chart Thoughtful posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not quoting it as proof of anything, but rather to ask for comments. If this is true, then how does that jibe with thoughtful's chart?
And finally:
"An average earner born in 1915 and turning 65 in 1980 could expect to get back roughly $60,000 more than he paid into the system (adjusted for inflation and interest). Someone born in 1936 will just about break even, and those born after 1960 can expect to pay at least $30,000 more in payroll taxes than they ever receive in benefits."
It seems to me that if this is true, we should be changing the focus of Social Security. Beef up the incomes of the truly poor (working or otherwise), tell the middle class they're largely on their own if they plan on having less than a skint-wallet retirement, and tell the rich they are completely on their own, but have to contribute for the general good--and as an insurance policy against disaster.
280. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:28 PM PT
ProfEmeritus
Before anyone gets excited about the possibility of a 50% reduction in tax levels, will you agree that to enact lower taxes now, you would need to stop payments now to current seniors who are counting on those payments, or, if you more realistically (as you suggest), phase it out gradually, the reduction in the required tax would phase in over decades, not in the near future?
281. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
FTC,
Well, I'm not a complete dufus. I figured it'd be something like that. And to make it meaningful, there would have to be at least some immediate hit.
But again, it's a middle class entitlement, not welfare. And the AARP is not crossed without retribution. So I'm not thinking it has much of a chance.
BTW, anyone seen the most recent SS proposal?
282. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:32 PM PT
CalGal
Thanks, really for the detail. Very interesting. So your answer is: the media?
283. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 5:33 PM PT
FTC,
No, I think the media is just reflecting public perception.
284. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:34 PM PT
CalGal
“Well, I'm not a complete dufus.”
I know.
Did you think 280 was directed at you? No, not at all.
285. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
CalGal
“No, I think the media is just reflecting public perception.”
::sigh::
So whence cometh public perception?
286. ProfEmeritus - May 7, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
CalGal
No. It is straightforward. Up to the limit, full benefits; over, none.
But a program could be devised to do what you suggest, or do you?
287. ProfEmeritus - May 7, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
CalGal
Anything Archer proposes is designed to kill social insurance and, in fact, all pensions except his own (Congessional) pension.
288. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT
CalGal
I haven't seen the new proposal, but I read a scathing review of it. Scathing enough that I assumed it would get dropped. If you think it is worth discussing, let me know and I'll try to do a bit of homework.
289. ProfEmeritus - May 7, 1999 - 5:46 PM PT
FTC
Congress has gotten by with reducing social security benefits to the wealthy before, and they could probably do it again. "Gradually" could be over a few years.
290. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:48 PM PT
CalGal
“This seems contradicted by the chart Thoughtful posted earlier in this thread, so I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm not quoting it as proof of anything, but rather to ask for comments. If this is true, then how does that jibe with thoughtful's chart?”
??
Thoughtful linked to the SSA site with hundreds of tables, and probably some charts. PE linked to his famous chart purporting the counter the claim that the dependency ratio isn't that big a deal. Is that what you meant? Are you confusing your economists?
291. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 5:51 PM PT
ProfEmeritus
They've taken only the tiniest of steps so far, if you mean the inclusion of a portion of benefits into income, which arguably didn't reduce benefits one whit.
Unless you are referring to the notch baby change, which was really just the correction of a blunder. As well as the delinking legislation, another example of correcting a blunder.
292. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 5:53 PM PT
ProfE, what you're suggesting is extremely drastic and totally unnecessary. The assumptions which lead to "bankruptcy" of social security include 0 productivity increase. Instead, we've seen an increase in productivity which has most recently caused the Congressional Budget Office (I believe) to push out their estimate of when bankruptcy would hit. So:
A. it is really unclear that social security has a problem at all.
B. the "fix" for social security need not be drastic.
I've looked,but have not yet found the Ball study on social security on the net which recommended a gradual increase in the retirement age and one small payroll tax increase to bring it into actuarial balance.
293. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 5:58 PM PT
Prof,
I'm not sure yet--it is my first preference, but I haven't decided for sure. Still chewing on it.
I think I would like to see everyone get the same amount from Social Security--within your income limits. In other words, if you choose to receive SS you receive a maximum of $15,000/year or whatever amount puts you at the limit. The amount you receive has nothing to do with what you paid in. If you worked minimum wage all your life: $15K. If you made $100K a year and went bankrupt, losing your retirement: $15K. If you had savings for the first 10 years that put you over the limit and then ran through all your money: $15K.
IOW, near total retirement income for the working poor, a supplement for the middle class, and proof of failure (aka insurance) to the wealthy.
294. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:03 PM PT
thoughtful
“I've looked,but have not yet found the Ball study on social security on the net which recommended a gradual increase in the retirement age and one small payroll tax increase to bring it into actuarial balance.”
I wrote a brief critique of Lasker's support of the Ball proposal (I think). If I have the right plan, the combination of proposed changes, (decreases in benefits and increases in taxes) resulted in reducing the ratio of benefit to taxes by about half. My specific criticism was that it was misleading to characterize it as modest tinkering.
295. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 6:04 PM PT
FTC,
Maybe it was thoughtful who referred people to Pseudo's chart and I got it backwards. It is terribly easy to confuse the two.
As for Archer's proposal, I neither approved or disapproved. But I don't see anything in it to set off alarms. It seems rather milquetoast. Evidenced by the fact that the Dems aren't screaming about it--at least in the article, which quotes Rengel.
Thoughtful,
But why should it remain the same? Why should we have to work longer until we retire? Why should people contribute far more than they will ever get if there is a way to ensure that the people who need the income will receive it?
296. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:05 PM PT
OK, I don't know how to link to the sites as the links don't show at the top, but I found a lot of stuff by Ball with the changes he recommends and the potential each has for reducing the "shortfall". I certainly don't agree with all of them, but certainly they are less painful than the drastic ProfE plan.
To find the info, go to Electronic Policy Network and search on "Ball Social Security". There are a number of excerpts from his book with Thomas Bethell.
Believe me. It's not like this topic hasn't been studied nine ways to Sunday!
297. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:13 PM PT
CalGal
“It is terribly easy to confuse the two.”
Holy cow – in a snarky modd? Or trusting that PE isn't around?
“ It seems rather milquetoast. Evidenced by the fact that the Dems aren't screaming about it--at least in the article, which quotes Rengel.”
Sounds like strong evidence that it is a bad idea, to me.
298. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:15 PM PT
If Archer's proposal is the one I'm thinking of, I believe the big nut was the confiscation of wealth upon death which the GOPers had trouble with.
Calgal, you can retire whenever you like and/or whenever you can afford it. No one is saying you *have* to work til you reach 66 1/2. It's just that you won't get SS benefits until then.
We are paying in more to social security because we are benefiting more from ss -- it is not just for retirees. It is for all of us children who are happy that are folks haven't moved in with us, expecting us to support them in their dotage -- and for those with parents who were frugal, who receive much larger inheritances than would otherwise. It is for all of us who enjoy a more stable economic environment with a social spending package that provides a base of income to a large share of the population which does not fluctuate with the business cycle.
It is also not clear to me that current payors will receive less than they pay in. I don't know what assumptions are made about life span or benefits received. Clearly one element of this "bankruptcy" scenario is that people are living and collecting so much longer. If calgal makes it to 110, but retires at 67, I'll just bet she gets her money's worth.
299. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:18 PM PT
Sheesh! I wasn't sure if I should be insulted or not when confused with PseuE; but then I sure didn't like the thought that he would take such umbrage at being considered a "thoughtful" person!
300. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
Actually I believe it was PseuE who posted the chart and then suggested again later that people refer to it. It's his chart, so he's selling it -- not me.
Also, let's get something really, really important clear here. Crystal clear. SS is not and will not go bankrupt! Not unless the US goes bankrupt. It is an entitlement that is backed by the full faith and credit of the US government with its entire power to tax the richest nation on earth.