302. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:21 PM PT
Thoughtful,
This site?
(Yes, it is a pain to link to)
303. aldavis - May 7, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
In order not to take out more than you put in to SS, one must die at a fairly young age. I have been collecting SS for 5 years, well over $40,000, and the way things look I'll collect for quite a while longer. What a great system that allows one to put in a little and take out a lot. Who do you suppose I'm getting the money from? You poor suckers who are still working. But don't worry, if you are nearing retirement age, just think how bad you will get to stick generation x. If you are in the x generation, you better hope oldsters take the advice given on this thread earlier; everyone over 70 do your patriotic duty and shuffle off this mortal coil.
304. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:27 PM PT
OK, FTC, how did you do that link? My IE just shows the epn.org at the top and if I view frames, it gives me the html, but not the source.
There was another article resulting from the search which talks more about the history of ss and how this dependency thing was not unpredicted, etc. I'd like to be able to post a link to that as well.
305. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:28 PM PT
thoughtful
“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.”
Of course it won't go bankrupt. So what? If the solution is to use general tax revenues to pay some benefits, and to tell others they just won't get what they thought they were going to get, it is still a problem worth addressing. The bankruptcy claim is intended to wake up some people who can't understand why we should care about something that is years into the future.
But I'm not sure you are even correct about the full faith and credit statement. That applies to government bonds, a security issued by the government. The government cannot decide not to honor some bonds without being declared in default. The government can, however, decide not to pay SS benefits to anyone they choose. (Legally, that is, not necessarily politically.)
306. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
thoughtful
It was a pain. Instead of clicking on the URL in the search page, I copy-and-pasted it into the address box. But it was too long for Pelle's nifty new macro, so I had to fudge a bit more, and excise one pesky blank space.
307. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 6:30 PM PT
Thoughtful,
I wasn't asking about myself in particular. I am self-employed; consequently I will *never* get back what I pay into it. And I'm not particularly worried about having to work longer. I am a consultant, which means I don't work very much at all.
My question, rather, was why *not* re-engineer it? Why not ensure that a comfortable retirement is provided to those who need it? Is supplementing middle class income so critical? Do we up the payroll tax and the retirement age for future generations just so that we can inherit a tad more from our parents?
And is it just me, but is that inheritance bit not robbing a poor Peter to pay a rich Paul. The parents who are likely to leave inheritances are also the ones not likely to need SS in the first place. But we want the payroll tax of Peter, the McDonald's worker, to be raised in order to increase the inheritance of Paul's children?
308. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:31 PM PT
Out of curiosity, all of you who are young and complaining that there will be no ss there when you retire -- are you currently saving for retirement? If so, do you know how big that nest egg is? Let's say you took it all and invested it in T-bonds to generate your retirement income -- currently 30 year bonds pay 5.8%. How much annual income would that generate for you? If you want an inflation adjusted T-bond, they pay only about 3.5% but are protected against future inflation. Have you reached a "living wage" yet?
309. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 6:33 PM PT
Thoughtful,
I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone is complaining about there being nothing left when they retire.
310. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:34 PM PT
thoughtful
“There was another article resulting from the search which talks more about the history of ss and how this dependency thing was not unpredicted, etc. I'd like to be able to post a link to that as well.”
I'm not seeing it. If you give me a hint (which of the 64 docs that came up in the search) I'd be happy to link it for you.
311. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:39 PM PT
calgal, I think the point is, as (was it AuNat?) one posted earlier, social security is very much allowing otherwise poor people to live a "comfortable" retirement. This will become increasingly important as a) the number of jobs including company pension plans is decreasing; b) the number of pension plans that are defined contribution as opposed to defined benefit are increasing; c) evidence that private savings is diminishing at an alarming rate.
How you define a "comfortable" retirement will differ from each persons perspective and from each region of the country. I suppose, if living at the poverty level is "comfortable" for you, you need not depend on ss at all -- rather you can rely on food stamps, AFDC, private charities, etc.
312. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:41 PM PT
FTC, what's pelle's nifty new macro?
The one I wanted is a few down called, "Straight Talk About Soc Sec: Misunderstandings About the Financing of Soc Sec"
Thanks muchly!
313. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:43 PM PT
I think this is the site that thoughtful recommended:
here
314. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
FTC, of course Congress could change soc sec rules as they have in the past -- to correct the overestimate of the COLA, gradually raising the retirement age, etc. But if a law is passed by the Congress laying out the benefits scales, eligibility rules, etc. then it must be complied with, no? How can they just deny benefits?
315. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 6:45 PM PT
Thoughtful,
Well, you have the libs in the thread who are saying the government shouldn't be in it at all. I'm saying something different; namely, I would like to see Social Security crafted to benefit those who need it most and leave everyone else a little farther out on their own. Especially since the alternative seems to be raising the payroll tax and the age for retirement.
I see nothing extreme about ProfEm's proposal--particularly if it cuts the payroll tax. That will disproportionately benefit the lower incomes as well. (which, if it's not clear, I approve of.)
316. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:47 PM PT
thoughtful
CG was ripping on someone (ace?) for not linking. She argued that it was easy. I don't like memorizing things that can be computerized, so I wrote a macro to create the links. Pelle took my macro and improved it. The details are in the Technical thread, post 3036.
317. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
FTC,
If it's something I can put on my FAQ, lemme know.
318. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:50 PM PT
Yup that's it. Thanks.
Calgal, how do you propose handling the transition? You've got a bunch of people who are counting on ss as part of their retirement based on the amounts they paid in, etc. You've also got a bunch of people relying on ss as a significant source of their current income. At what point do you say OK to all you over age X and no go for those under age X. Then how do you finance those over age X without the funds from those under?
Sounds to me like what you're proposing is a negative income tax a la Milton Friedman in which there would be one social safety net for everyone and do away with the current patchwork. That has its advantages, but is very difficult to execute politically.
319. FreeToChoose - May 7, 1999 - 6:54 PM PT
thoughtful
“How can they just deny benefits?”
Same way, they pass a law. Politically they would be tarred and feathered if they simply passed a law eliminating benefits in a major way. But they could pass a law increasing the proportion of benefits subject to income tax (a path they have started down) or they could decide to reduce the COLA's (proposed) or they could freeze benefit levels for people with high enough income (not proposed, but they could get away with it) More extreme would be to actually reduce the amount of someone's benefits. I don't think they would do it now, but that it a political decision. If they refuse to make changes for years until a crisis looms, they could get away with actually reducing benefits for some. I think. I'm not a lawyer, but it is my impression that benefits provided by law can be removed by law. I think SS benefits are in a different class than government securities.
320. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 6:57 PM PT
calgal, re "I'm not sure, but I don't think anyone is complaining about there being nothing left when they retire."
I can't find it right off, but the Concord Coalition did a study and came up with a startling stat -- more GenXers believe in aliens than believe they will ever see ss benefits.
321. bubbaette - May 7, 1999 - 6:58 PM PT
that's a big part of the instability in SS right now, from my understanding. The life expectancy keeps going up, but the retirement age has stayed the same since the program's inception. Most 65 year olds are healthy compared to those at the program's inception. To be comparable, I'd guess the current retirement age should be at least 70.
322. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 7:01 PM PT
Thoughtful,
The word "X" appeared too many times in your post, and reminded me of a math problem. I am consquently traumatized. If that wasn't enough, I am apparently promoting a "negative income" solution, and I don't even know what that is!
Seriously: if the answer to any proposed solution is "well, it's too *messy* to get from there to here", then "getting there" an entirely different problem and one that should be solved separately from evaluating solutions. It doesn't mean to ignore any solutions and keep the patchwork.
I believe most polls show that those 40 and under have a healthy disrespect for Social Security. Were they told by the government that they got a cut in payroll taxes and a fixed income at retirement assuming they couldn't do better on their own, I don't think they'd bitch.
Then you can split up the problems of those 40-50, 50-60, and the currently retired.
I am not arguing that selling it to these people would be easy--particularly those who are currently retired (who will suffer the least and as a group complain the most). But it also doesn't seem insurmountable. Particularly if you wave a big carrot to the younger generations to get them involved and squawking enthusiastically. Let politicians see political fallout *every* which way, rather than a walk in the park provided they avoid the wrath of the AARP.
323. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 7:02 PM PT
FTC, but the point is, the government must pay for whatever deal it makes and it pays for it with tax dollars or debt. Regardless. But all of those are separate decisions. If you choose to reduce the ss deficit (of which I am still unconvinced is a problem) then you must raise taxes or reduce benefits. That's pretty clear. If you choose to continue with the benefits, then those will be backed by the govt's ability to tax. It is not -- as the impression is made -- a separate trust fund, the balance of which will go to zero, then everyone is suddenly cut off. That's what I meant.
324. bubbaette - May 7, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
I don't think there is a SS deficit right now is there? I was under the impression that the program is currently taking in more than it's paying out. I think of it more as an unfunded liability.
325. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 7:06 PM PT
Thoughtful,
I meant no one in this discussion had expressed the concern. Speaking as a very late boomer, I have no expectation of Social Security income. But that has more to do with my belief that it will have changed by then than my thinking that the system will be bankrupt.
326. aldavis - May 7, 1999 - 7:09 PM PT
Isn't it obvious that a retirement plan that allows people to remove from the system more than they invested in the system has a problem? The money I recieve every month has no relationship to any investment. I had 37 years in the system, and in the early stages the amount put in was miniscule. The money in the system is the % taken from today's workers.
The reason the system will not be changed is because it is in the hands of politicians, whose only real interest is getting re-elected and more and more power. They will never be honest with the American public.
The general public is too lethargic and uninformed to really care.
327. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 7:24 PM PT
bbbtt, yes, you are right. SS is currently in surplus. I was using the term, perhaps too loosely, to suggest a deficit vs. actuarial balance over the next 75 years (whatever that is).
calgal, the negative income tax was proposed by nobel economist milton friedman as a way of bringing efficiency to the social safety net. Everyone would be guaranteed a minimum income regardless if they are middle aged and unemployed or retired with no benefits. If you choose to work to get more income, the benefits received would gradually fade out in such a way that you would not be penalized for working. As you made enough, the benefit would disappear completely, and then as you made more, you'd be taxed on your income. The idea was that it would be easy to administer, would replace the whole patchwork of programs e.g. WIC, AFDC, Soc Sec, unemployment insurance, etc. It would also ensure that people would not be discouraged from working as they can be today -- make $1 over the limit and your AFDC is cut off type stuff.
328. thoughtful - May 7, 1999 - 7:28 PM PT
The transition is the big problem. If you cut those under 40 out of the system, then you won't have as much going in and the "crisis" will happen that much sooner. But you will still need a way of funding the existing and soon-to-be retired.
Instead, Ball suggests going the other way and including all the govt workers as well to prevent "double dipping" where one avoids paying in by working for the government, retires with full gov't pension, then works a few years in the private sector to get lifetime soc sec annuity with having paid in for only a few years.
329. ProfEmeritus - May 7, 1999 - 7:37 PM PT
Painful? My suggestion was a way to alleviate the tax burden on lower and middle income groups while: 1)presrving their potential SS benefits, and 2) relieving them from paying taxes to finance unneeded income supplements to the affluent.
thoughtful:
productivity increases (which are very erratic and unpredictable) would only make my suggestions more desireable by further reducing the payroll taxes needed to finance OASDI benefits.
330. CalGal - May 7, 1999 - 7:39 PM PT
Thoughtful,
Interesting; I have often said that I believe anyone who doesn't work should receive a guaranteed income from the government. Although I think the dollar over the limit thing and you're cut off should occur. I think the guaranteed income should be sufficient but not satisfactory.
As for "cutting out" those under 40--I'm not saying that their payroll tax goes away. It just gets cut back somewhat, with the knowledge of the terms accompanying the cutback. Obviously, the cuts would be phased in. And the older people would still have to pay the full amount, since the terms of their payout are better.
331. AceOfSpades - May 7, 1999 - 7:42 PM PT
The day the government institutes a guaranteed income is the day that 20% of America quits its job.
And maybe I'll be among them.
332. chengster - May 7, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT
The day the government institutes a guaranteed income...
Actually this is what SS is. But only for those over 60.
My complaint is that for many wealthy or upper-middle income it is a inheritance protection fund. Remember the quaint old idea of saving for retirement. Somewhere in that idea was the thought that you would one day be spending some of what you've saved. Now if you've played your cards right -- own your home, no debt etc. -- you can live quite comfortably on social security benefits and never dip into the money that will be passed on to your heirs.
333. aldavis - May 7, 1999 - 8:17 PM PT
chengster
That is quite an assumtion you make, as if all we oldsters think about is passing on our money. If I knew the day of departure, I don't think there would be much left. My three children are quite capable of taking care of themselves.
What SS is for many seasoned citizens, myself encluded, is a little extra spending money to be a little reckless with. Even though I benefit from it, I really think SS sould be means tested and taken away for a large # of us.
334. arkymalarky - May 7, 1999 - 9:40 PM PT
"If I knew the day of departure, I don't think there would be much left. My three children are quite capable of taking care of themselves."
Dad?
335. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 10:50 PM PT
"the negative income tax was proposed by nobel economist milton friedman"
The *libertarian* economist, Milton Friedman, who prefers to be described as a classical liberal because he doesn't like the implied association with the epynonymous party.
But, no. That can't be because libertarian ideas aren't influencing the popular debate....
336. AuNaturel - May 7, 1999 - 11:13 PM PT
"Actually this is what SS is. But only for those over 60."
As a result we have large numbers of people quitting their jobs and refusing to work who are over 60.
337. AceOfSpades - May 7, 1999 - 11:17 PM PT
Arky:
Very funny.
338. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 7:26 AM PT
bubbaette
Well, thoughtful responded, but I thought I would chime in. You are correct, the program is not in deficit at the moment, meaning that it receives more in taxes each year than it pays out in benefits. But this is a bit artificial. Only because it is a government program is it allowed to use pay-as-you-go financing. Any corporation, and insurance program with the exact same cash flows would be horrendously bankrupt using GAAP accounting, and getting worse each year.
You are correct that the term for this situation is "unfunded liability". And the amount of this unfunded liability is *higher* than the national debt.
339. JAdeGOld - May 8, 1999 - 8:22 AM PT
Of course, FritoCheese trots out the same arguments in Message #338.
Fortunately, these arguments are all false.
First, Government is not a business. Any comparison is specious. If you wish to compare Govt. accounting practices to those of private industry, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Second, FritoCheese engages in quite a bit of dishonesty by correctly acknowledging that SS is currently running a surplus (and always has), then turning around and stating that the cash flows are abysmal. In 1983 and again in 1996, Social Security opponents claimed the system was going bankrupt--yet in 1989 they also attacked it for running huge surpluses. Face facts, you know the doomsayers are pretty dishonest when they start attacking surpluses.
Third, unfunded liabilities. What crap. There is no need to cover unfunded liabilities in a pay-as-you-go program. Claiming huge current shortfalls on debts not yet due are quite irrelevant; FritoCheese dishonestly engages in fearmongering by carelessly throwing around "*higher* than the national debt." Note that if all our mortgages were called tomorrow Americans could not pay up. But, of course, these debts won't be called if we make our monthly payments. Similarly, FritoCheese's beloved Ponzi Scheme industry could not pay all benefits if all policyholders made claims tomorrow.
340. bubbaette - May 8, 1999 - 8:27 AM PT
Frankly, I'm glad that the state retirement system is not a pay-as-you go system -- and that deferred comp's been returning 14%.
341. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 10:04 AM PT
JAdeGOld
Good Lord, your incompetence is staggering.
"First, Government is not a business."
No shit.
"If you wish to compare Govt. accounting
practices to those of private industry, you are comparing
apples and oranges."
What nonsense. The Federal government gets away with silly practices because, well, they're the ones with the biggest guns. States and municipalities (and I presume counties) have to follow accounting practices far closer to GAAP. Anyone with any knowledge of government accounting practices would know this.
"Second, FritoCheese[sic] engages in quite a bit of dishonesty
by correctly acknowledging that SS is currently running a
surplus (and always has), then turning around and stating
that the cash flows are abysmal."
I never stated that the cash flows were abysmal. STOP LYING.
342. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 10:07 AM PT
JAdeGOld
"Note that if all our mortgages
were called tomorrow Americans could not pay up."
What irrelevant bullshit. Virtually every home mortgage in this country is secured by an asset—the home. The unfunded liabilities of the SS system are not legally secured by anything. We simply trust that government has enough power to extract sufficient taxes, or rewrite the law to reduce the benefits.
Talk about specious arguments, this one has been trotted out so many times, people might think there was something to it.
343. thoughtful - May 8, 1999 - 10:40 AM PT
FTC, on the accounting issue, the government runs a cash accounting system and has no capital accounts. This is very, very different from corporate accounting and GAAP. In fact, the government has lots of assets that have all been expensed including buildings, armaments, vehicles, property, etc. So on a cash accounting basis, ss is currently in surplus -- hardly unfunded liabilities.
Anyone want to guess what the largest unfunded liability was in US history? (Mind you I have no data to back this up, but it sure makes sense to me.)
ProfE. The problem with your proposal is, if I understand it correctly, it underestimates the skewness of the income distribution. We also have programs to deal with poverty. This program was to ensure a lifetime annuity for retired workers. It's not clear to me tht we need another poverty program or that we don't need a guaranteed pension, especially as more firms drop pension plans, especially fixed benefit plans, and as the savings rate drops to negative levels, not seen since the depression.
344. JAdeGOld - May 8, 1999 - 10:45 AM PT
Again, FritoCheese, look up the meaning of 'unfunded liabilities.' In a pay-as-you-go system, there is no need to cover 'unfunded liabilities.'
Look at the Ponzi scheme (insurance) industry---if all policyholders decide to file claims tomorrow, the insurance companies simply would not be able to meet their 'unfunded liabilities.'
Which brings us to your latest bit of dishonesty: " The unfunded liabilities of the SS system are not legally secured by anything." As we noted previously, in a pay-as-you-go system there is no need to cover unfunded liabilities. However, let's accept your erroneous premise and address the issue of SS not being secured by anything. Well, FritoCheese, if Treasury securities in the SS trust funds are worthless, so are all other Treasury instruments. If all Treasury instruments are "nothing" or "worthless," we really don't have an economy; therefore, SS is the least of our worries under such a scenario.
345. msgreer - May 8, 1999 - 10:57 AM PT
There are many, many older folks who HAVE to work past retirement age.
They can work, the government is all for it.
But they have put a cap on how much these people can earn while they are collecting SS.
I don't know the figure off hand, but I will get it.
I do know it is not much.
Lawmakers have *promised* to increase this cap. Nothing has been done.
I just feel we can't lose sight of these folks. Someone has to acknowledge being *poor* in this country is not breaking the law.
The majority of these folks do work and would like to work more for they need the money.
I hear it from my clients. I hear it from the nice guy who bags my groceries. I hear it from women who work in retail stores who are stuggling to make ends meet.
There is no need to judge how the elderly got into this position.
The reality is it is happening all over this country and nothing is being done.
As I see it, "there but for the grace of God go I".
It could happen to any of us.
It needs to be addressed and laws must change.
346. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:04 AM PT
JAdeGOld
“Again, FritoCheese[sic], look up the meaning of 'unfunded liabilities.' In a pay-as-you-go system, there is no need to cover 'unfunded liabilities.' “
I don't need to look it up, I know what it means. In a pay-as-you-go system, liabilities are not funded. That's why it gets its name. If you understood that, you wouldn't have posted it. Unless you are a robot, searching for “unfunded liabilities” and mindlessly responding with the minor bit of irrelevant trivia that you know.
“Look at the Ponzi scheme (insurance) industry---if all policyholders decide to file claims tomorrow, the insurance companies simply would not be able to meet their 'unfunded liabilities.' “
More incompetence. Insurance companies fund their liabilities. Policyholders cannot just “decide” to file claims (unless you mean fraudulent claims) anytime. Something has to happen. It doesn't always happen at the same time, hence the concept of insurance works.
Why are you so insistent on trotting out your lack of knowledge?
347. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:07 AM PT
JAdeGOld
You know, lack of knowledge isn't a crime. I certainly am lacking in knowledge on many subjects. But the way to handle it is to ask a question, not insist on making up crap and pretending it is factual.
You might actually know something about something. But when you put forth as “fact” that which is demonstrably false, you shed question whenever you spew. Which is fine with me, but just thought you'd want to know.
348. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:11 AM PT
thoughtful
“FTC, on the accounting issue, the government runs a cash accounting system and has no capital accounts.”
As I pointed out above, this is true of the Federal government, but is not true of (most?) other levels of government.
“This is very, very different from corporate accounting and GAAP.”
“So on a cash accounting basis, ss is currently in surplus -- hardly unfunded liabilities.”
The fact that the Federal government can use cash accounting doesn't make the liabilities go away, and certainly doesn't fund them. A chilling counter-argument is that the “liabilities” aren't really liabilities—as I pointed out before, the government could decide not to pay them. But, for obvious reasons, the government doesn't want to push this argument.
349. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:14 AM PT
To all
Responding point by point to jade's bullshit will detract from an otherwise interesting discussion. I will try to refrain myself, if everyone is willing to accept that, generally speaking, everything Jade says on the subject of insurance is flat-out wrong. Should jade say anything that rings true with someone, point it out, and I will either correct it, or acknowledge the rare event of jade being correct.
350. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:24 AM PT
There has been some talk about changing the data of full retirement, as if it is a proposal. It has already been enacted (explaining why Boomer's full retirement age is 66)
A excerpt from the SS web site (here)
“Full Retirement Age
The usual retirement age for people retiring now is age 65. Social Security calls this “full retirement age,'' and the benefit amount that is payable is considered the full retirement benefit.
Because of longer life expectancies, the full retirement age will be increased in gradual steps until it reaches age 67. This change starts in the year 2003, and it affects people born in 1938 and later.”
351. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:34 AM PT
Oops, I should have read on before posting. The next paragraph gives the details:
Age To Receive Full Social Security Benefits
Year of Birth Full Retirement Age
1937 or earlier 65
1938 65 and 2 months
1939 65 and 4 months
1940 65 and 6 months
1941 65 and 8 months
1942 65 and 10 months
1943--1954 66
1955 66 and 2 months
1956 66 and 4 months
1957 66 and 6 months
1958 66 and 8 months
1959 66 and 10 months
1960 and later 67
352. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:38 AM PT
msgreer
You mentioned a cap on earnings. What actually happens is that there is a reduction in benefits for certain people.
I'll quote from the same SSA publication:
“If You Work And Get Social
Security At The Same Time
You can continue to work and still get retirement benefits. Earnings in, or after, the month you reach age 70 won't affect your Social Security benefits. However, before age 70, your benefits will be reduced if your earnings exceed certain limits.
• If you are under 65, $1 in benefits will be deducted for each $2 in earnings above the limit.
• If you are 65 through 69, $1 in benefits will be deducted for each $3 in earnings above the limit. “
353. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
msgreer
You mentioned a cap on earnings. What actually happens is that there is a reduction in benefits for certain people.
I'll quote from the same SSA publication:
“If You Work And Get Social
Security At The Same Time
You can continue to work and still get retirement benefits. Earnings in, or after, the month you reach age 70 won't affect your Social Security benefits. However, before age 70, your benefits will be reduced if your earnings exceed certain limits.
• If you are under 65, $1 in benefits will be deducted for each $2 in earnings above the limit.
• If you are 65 through 69, $1 in benefits will be deducted for each $3 in earnings above the limit. “
354. JAdeGOld - May 8, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
FritoCheese on unfunded liabilities:
"I don't need to look it up, I know what it means. In a pay-as-you-go system, liabilities are not funded. That's why it gets its name."
FritoCheese simply doesn't get it. Again, I repeat--there is no need to cover unfunded liabilities in a pay-as-you-go program. Claiming huge current shortfalls on debts not yet due are quite irrelevant. Yet, FritoCheese keeps assuming that this is somehow relevant. In one post, he maintains that the dreaded 'unfunded liabilities' are higher than the Ronald Reagan National Debt. Utterly meaningless and completely dishonest.
In the same post, FritoCheese maintains that the SS because it generates a surplus is somehow an example of a bankrupt business. I'm not sure how to even respond to this as his point is incoherent. Are surpluses bad?
In another post, FritoCheese maintains that SS the dread 'unfunded liabilities' are not secured by "anything." Even if we accept FritoCheese's paranoia about the nonexistent dread 'unfunded liabilities,' one cannot accept that Treasury securities and instruments are "nothing" or "worthless." One gets the feeling that FritoCheese keeps gold bars and barrels of rolled oats in his bunker.
355. MsIvoryTower - May 8, 1999 - 3:44 PM PT
reMessage #335
"The *libertarian* economist, Milton Friedman,"
At the time Friedman wrote about his negative income tax (in Capitalism and Freedom, 1962) and when he won the Nobel for his work in monetarism, he was not a libertarian, nor was he considered a "classical liberal", he was the main proponent of the monetarist theory in mainstream economics. It became the forerunner of the neo-classical theories now juxtaposed against neo-keynesian theories.
Friedman has embraced libertarianism in his dottering old age. And since doing so, he's not written one decent piece of economic theorizing.
356. FreeToChoose - May 8, 1999 - 5:25 PM PT
N. Gregory Mankiw, in a Fortune article called:
The Economist of the Century
sees it a bit differently.
He says:
"As he approaches his 86th birthday, Friedman remains one of the world's most influential living economists."
And while he doesn't provide a date:
"Milton and Rose were libertarians--aggressively vocal
libertarians--before libertarians were cool."
357. MsIvoryTower - May 8, 1999 - 7:27 PM PT
Doesn't refute what I said.
Friedman was influential, and the body of his work remains so. It was the catalyst for vouchers, flat taxes, modern monetarism, and the notion of consumer expectations based on a permanent income (or expected permanent income), to name just a few.
Still doesn't mean he's done any significant work since the late 70's, about the time libertarianism was discovered.
358. aldavis - May 8, 1999 - 8:20 PM PT
MIT
Are you serious about libertarianism being "discovered" in the 70's? Seems to me that Ian Rand wrote before the '70's and as far as I know, was Libertarian with a capitol L.
As far as the argument about how solvent SS is or wheather it will be able to pay off in the future, the answer to this is very simple; when the amount taken from payroll is not enough to fund retired, it will simple raise the amount taken, and maybe lower the amount given. The raise in the amount taken will occur in the next few years. Politicians will make it work, because they do not have the guts to admit it is a fraud.
359. MsIvoryTower - May 8, 1999 - 9:42 PM PT
AlDavis
Discovered in the sense that it became a political movement worth noting in this country. Prior to that, it was a fringe movement that had little or no real visibility, except as an outlet for quacks.
Libertarianism is now a raging fad. It's become so in the last decade or so, but wasn't through most of the 70's and early 80's.
360. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 9:52 PM PT
"Prior to that, it was a fringe movement that had little or no real visibility, except as an outlet for quacks."
That, to me, describes Libertarianism right now. Sometimes, I think we have half the Libertarian party in the Fray.
361. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 9:53 PM PT
Let me quickly add that we have the better half in the Fray -- not the quacks that MsIT refers to.
362. CalGal - May 8, 1999 - 9:56 PM PT
Naw, there are tons of Libertarians in the Bay Area, and they all work for startups.
363. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 9:57 PM PT
The Bay Area is as fringe as you get.
364. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:01 PM PT
What does the Libertarian Party represent -- 2 to 3% of the nation's voters at most?
365. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:05 PM PT
"It became the forerunner of the neo-classical theories"
Gee. He resurrected classical liberalism in 1962. He calls himself a classical liberal today. Has always favored a small government and free markets. Th Chicago school has since produced the best economic thinkers this nation has seen (bumper crop of Nobel prizes) and been fully embraced by most contemporary libertarian thinkers.
Jade, you make my case easy.
Libertarianism with a capital "L" is reserved today for the political party which first emerged in the 70s. Libertarianism with the lower case "l" refers to the philosophy. I don't know when the term was coined or gained popularity. It may well have used the upper case "L" until the epynonymous party was founded, forcing the distinction.
Certainly Rand espoused an earlier variant of the libertarian theme. She called it Objectivism. Her "Atlas Shrugged" was a very influential novel among college students for quite a while.
366. CalGal - May 8, 1999 - 10:08 PM PT
I can never tell if we're fringe or bleeding edge.
I'm perfectly willing to say "fringe", or course. But just when I've decided in that adjective's favor, the rest of the nation starts to do something that we considered old hat three years ago.
I am not asserting that the rest of the world will become Libertarians, god forbid. But it wouldn't surprise me if they become more common in Iowa in four or five years.
367. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:09 PM PT
The attribution for 365 got screwed up. Sorry Ms IT. No foul intended. I was thinking about two different posts at the one time and mixing them together.
368. CalGal - May 8, 1999 - 10:10 PM PT
"More common" as in "not to be remarked upon". Not "more common" as in "a significant percentage of the population".
369. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:11 PM PT
"What does the Libertarian Party represent -- 2 to 3% of the nation's voters at most?"
In membership, registration, voting strength for it's candidates and at what level do you mean?
370. aldavis - May 8, 1999 - 10:12 PM PT
Third Parties, while never very successful in American Politics, have had influence beyond their numbers. Look at how many tenents of the Socialist or Communist Party have come about.
371. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
Au --
At any measurable level, does the LIbertarian Party represent more than 2 to 3% of the voters.
372. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:15 PM PT
"But it wouldn't surprise me if they
become more common in Iowa in four or five years."
One of the difficulties is getting people who dislike government to take an active role in doing something about it. I have some good Times polling data indicating about 20% of the population embraces libertarian philosophy at least in its more moderate form. Most of don't vote as they see any participation as either futile or contributing to the problem.
373. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 10:17 PM PT
"Her "Atlas Shrugged" was a very influential novel among college students for quite a while."
So was The Hobbit.
Just kidding. I like Rand. But she's dangerous reading. After reading her essays I became as devoted to her as Cartman is to Chomsky.
They forced me to watch 100 consecutive hours of Norman Lear sitcoms to deprogram me. But I still twitch when I hear the words "Reardon metal."
374. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:18 PM PT
Au --
"I have some good Times polling data indicating about 20% of the population embraces libertarian philosophy at least in its more moderate form. Most of don't vote as they see any participation as either futile or contributing to the problem."
What is Libertarianism's more moderate form?
375. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 10:20 PM PT
"What is Libertarianism's more moderate form?"
Pro-choice Republicanism.
376. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:21 PM PT
LOL.
377. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
At one time they had several members of the New Hampshire state legislature. They've got a state senator in Hawaii of all places. Had one in Alaska. Don't know where else they may have won in the last election. Ron Paul was the LP pres candidate once, he is now a Congressman from Texas again, now that he is back in the Repug party.
In the range of 100 plus city and county elected offices. Much easier for a Lib to win in nonpartisan campaigns.
Usually manage to pull a couple percent of the vote in statewide elections in California and frequently 5 to 10% in state legislature races in 3+ way races. Voter registration is floating about 1% out here.
Presidential vote count is less than one percent. No where near as successful electorally as the Socialists/Progressives were. Still they managed to qualify for the ballot on all 50 states in the last two Pres. elections.
378. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
"Pro-choice Republicanism."
Pro privacy, ant-drug war Republicanism. They fall on both sides of the abortion issue.
379. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
Privacy, schmivacy. Only criminals and paranoids are really concerned about privacy.
You know what the odds are of cops busting down my door? Pretty damn slim. And if they *do* do it, I'm going to be a goddamned millionaire.
380. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:39 PM PT
"They've got a state senator in Hawaii of all places."
I met a libertarian named Ken Schooland in Hawaii. He taught economics at a HPU and was very politically active in the state. He was always trying to recruit his students to the cause. He wrote a couple of tracts about the evils of the state. I was in his class called "The Economic History of Modern Japan". Fairly interesting if only because he let his students run it. The moment he tried to say anything, the quality of the class nosedived. His formula was simple: Everything good about Japan happened because the Japanese government gave some freedom to its people (i.e. low taxes); everything bad about Japan happened because the Japanese government tried to repress the freedom of the people (stiff trade barriers, oppressive culture, etc.).
381. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:41 PM PT
There are "liberal" libertarians that are more concerned about civil liberties issues and there are conservative libertarians who are more worried about free market economics. This little quiz , although an LP propaganda piece, does a good job of showing where you would fall in the libertarian political spectrum. A "moderate libertarian" would score at 70%-70% or thereabouts.
382. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:43 PM PT
"Everything good about Japan happened
because the Japanese government gave some freedom to its
people (i.e. low taxes); everything bad about Japan happened
because the Japanese government tried to repress the freedom of
the people (stiff trade barriers, oppressive culture, etc.)."
Where's the problem?
383. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 10:43 PM PT
" A "moderate libertarian" would score at 70%-70% or thereabouts."
That's a pretty narrow range.
384. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:51 PM PT
"Where's the problem?"
Japan's "oppressive culture" is thought by many to be one of the key's to its success. Besides, the point is that a libertarian is an ideologue -- he moves from his beliefs to prove the evidence supports it rather than seeing if the evidence supports his beliefs.
385. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 10:51 PM PT
"Privacy, schmivacy. Only criminals and paranoids are really concerned about privacy."
Classic conservative statement.
"You know what the odds are of cops busting down my door? Pretty damn slim."
Of course. You're exactly the kind of person they want to be when they grow up. But you still better be sure they get the address right when they are in your neighborhood.
"And if they *do* do it, I'm going to be a goddamned millionaire."
If you survive.
386. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 10:53 PM PT
I'm 80%/60% on the Libertarian quiz.
387. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 10:58 PM PT
Au:
No, I'm the kind of person who doesn't break many laws.
And if cops do burst into my apartment, I'll get face down on the floor with my hands interlocked behind my back. I'll treat them politely during their stay.
When they leave, I'll call Jonnie Cochran.
388. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 11:00 PM PT
"Besides, the point is that a libertarian is an ideologue"
The point is that any dufus with an agenda can be an ideologue regardless of ideology. You are being one yourself by making that statement. You've decided that libs are by nature ideologues. Then you take the next step of setting the definition as such, making it impossible in your mind for it to be any other way.
I hardly consider someone who scores 70-70 on that silly quiz to be an ideologue but they fall within a perfectly reasonable definition of libertarian once you accept it as a position on a spectrum and not a religion. Maybe your teacher in Hawaii was just another variation on a thumper.
389. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 11:04 PM PT
Libertarianism is a philosophy. It should no more be an independent philosophy that, say, Civil Rights Liberalism.
There can be only two parties in this country. People who refuse to get on board with one or the other are marginalizing themselves.
390. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 11:06 PM PT
"That's a pretty narrow range."
Not at all, given the chart defines a "centrist" as from 65-65 to 35-35 on both axes. If you were to craft the questionaire perfectly you have four equally balenced groups and a large centrist population.
391. AceOfSpades - May 8, 1999 - 11:08 PM PT
Au:
I was joking. I didn't realize it was graded on two axes. I thought it just gave you one score and you made a typo, saying "70-70%" when you meant "70-80%."
392. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 11:08 PM PT
"I'm 80%/60% on the Libertarian quiz."
Moderate libertarian. Unlikely to get any support within the party whatsoever because you lack purity. That's why I left it. I am politically homeless.
393. AuNaturel - May 8, 1999 - 11:12 PM PT
"Libertarianism is a philosophy."
Libertarianism is a position on a spectrum in opposition to authoritarianism just as conservatives are in opposition to liberalism. Nothing else.
394. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 11:13 PM PT
"The point is that any dufus with an agenda can be an ideologue regardless of ideology. You are being one yourself by making that statement. You've decided that libs are by nature ideologues. Then you take the next step of setting the definition as such, making it impossible in your mind for it to be any other way."
Of course, there are many kinds of ideologues, although I don't see how I am one myself with that statement. Libertarians set the definition of what it means to be a Libertarian, not me. I have read Charles Murray's book _What it means to be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation_ and also says that Libertarian can cover a wide spectrum. But what Libertarianism means in its various practices is a strong faith in the value of maximum freedom. Freedom is almost always good. This may be a noble ideology, and one that has some resonance with Americans at large (including myself), but I don't automatically think -- like most Libertarians do -- that freedom is the best for all situations.
395. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 11:15 PM PT
"I have read Charles Murray's book _What it means to be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation_ and also says that Libertarian can cover a wide spectrum."
should read "I have read Charles Murray's book _What it means to be a Libertarian: A Personal Interpretation_ and *it* also says that Libertarianism can cover a wide spectrum.
396. Silverscream - May 8, 1999 - 11:23 PM PT
I guess I missed the early show, but what does all of this sparring have to do with the graying of America?
397. PincherMartin - May 8, 1999 - 11:28 PM PT
We have discovered that American senior citizens are the fastest growing segment of the Libertarian party.
398. CalGal - May 8, 1999 - 11:28 PM PT
Nothing. The conversation morphed here from Social Security.
I think the Social Security conversation was left last at those who thought it was a good idea as is and those who thought it should be re-engineered to address the needs of the poorer elderly.
399. aldavis - May 8, 1999 - 11:41 PM PT
SS is simple welfare, but who is it welfare for? Take it away from the people who don't need it, me for example, and give a decent amount to the poor smucks who weren't smart enough to get rich.
400. CIGARLAW - May 8, 1999 - 11:56 PM PT
ace: granted cops don't bust down everyone's door, but if you think it will make you a millionarie, you are nuts. cops have all kinds of immunities and if the case does go to trial, about 80+ percent of the time they win. almost every judge in calif. is an ex-prosecutor ready to cut you off at the knees if you try to sue a cop. the average award is about $80,000. the million dollar cases are the ones where the survivors get the money.
also, every case i have seen, even if they find nothing else, they charge the victim with resisting arrest. the more egregious the damages, the harder they prosecute. i haven't had a client go to jail on that charge yet, but you better have a lot of money upfront to hire me or kiss it all goodbye.