Does anybody know of any legislation for opting out of Social Security, in which you can redirect that money into your own investment vehicles for retirement?
Whatever information someone can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time.
solson

Greetings, Solson, and welcome.

<<Does anybody know of any legislation for opting out of Social Security, in which you can redirect that money into your own investment vehicles for retirement?
Whatever information someone can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ahead of time.>>

No such legislation currently exists nor is anything remotely like it pending in the Congress.

Regards....Pixy

You could become a cop, at least in NJ. ;)

We don't have to pay into SS, tho' we are still required to pay into Medicare.

I can't tell you what it means to my own financial health not to have to have all that money sucked into that legalized Ponzi scheme.

We can't collect SS, of course, unless we've "contributed" (almost makes it sound like u have a choice, doesn't it?) through some other employment. But not having that sizeable chunk of money wasted on an "investment" with virtually no returns means that I'm able to really plan for my retirement.

I really sympathize with those who are still being defrauded by their own government.

>>>I can't tell you what it means to my own financial health not to have to have all that money sucked into that legalized Ponzi scheme.<<<

You sound like a cynical Cop. As long as you are putting money away for your retirement, you are doing Okay, but I know several of my clients that don't have to pay into SS, and they are not doing enough in the savings department.

They always have good arguements as to why they cannot put more into retirement investing. Bills, more bill, and more bills. Kind of a downward spiral isn't it.

Maybe SS is like medicine, doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth, but it can help you. The last statement of a long term skeptic on finances, most people when it comes to taking care of themselves financially (routinely and for retirement) are lazy, immature, and a lot like the grasshopper in the old story.

Maybe SS isn't so bad for people like that. Too bad they are not like us; astute adults fully incharge of our lives......

TTFN...TiggerToo

<You could become a cop, at least in NJ. ;)

We don't have to pay into SS, tho' we are still required to pay into Medicare.

I can't tell you what it means to my own financial health not to have to have all that money sucked into that legalized Ponzi scheme.

We can't collect SS, of course, unless we've "contributed" (almost makes it sound like u have a choice, doesn't it?) through some other employment. But not having that sizeable chunk of money wasted on an "investment" with virtually no returns means that I'm able to really plan for my retirement.

I really sympathize with those who are still being defrauded by their own government.>

I do not believe Social Security to be a fraud, in the sense that deception is used. It is perfectly clear how the social security system is run (and much better than many government agencies).

It may well be true that you can make your investments in a more profitable way than the Social Security system can. But you just might be unfortunate in your investments and end up with nothing, or less than Social Security would provide. Then you would be really stuck.

One return, that IMO has some value, is the GUARANTEED payments, something like an annuity, that you get from Social Security that you get from no other. Even if your stock market account goes to zero value, even if the insurance company that wrote your annuity went bankrupt, you would still get your social security. The underperformance, by most standards, of the Social Security system is the price paid for the certainty of payment: something that no other investment provides.

> Maybe SS is like medicine, doesn't leave a good taste
> in the mouth, but it can help you. The last statement
> of a long term skeptic on finances, most people when
> it comes to taking care of themselves financially
> (routinely and for retirement) are lazy, immature,
> and a lot like the grasshopper in the old story.

> Maybe SS isn't so bad for people like that.

So a person who is an ant, who plans and scrimps and
saves for the future, should take care of the
grasshopper that doesn't? Didn't the grasshopper die
at the end of the parable during the cold, harsh
winter while the ant was warm, cozy, and well fed?
It seems like today we have this parable backwards.

Of course, then again, I think that "retirement" is
bad anyway. Studies have shown that if you quit
working, you die sooner. Personally I plan to work
after I "retire". I want to enjoy the wealth my
ant-like behavior has given me.


LifeGuard

<> Maybe SS isn't so bad for people like that.

So a person who is an ant, who plans and scrimps and saves for the future, should take care of the grasshopper that doesn't? Didn't the grasshopper die at the end of the parable during the cold, harsh winter while the ant was warm, cozy, and well fed? It seems like today we have this parable backwards.>

Before being so harsh, consider that the person on social security may be an old father or grandmother of yours. What SHOULD happen to him or her if they should be so improvident or unfortunate as to have no suitable retirement investments. Such as the case, discussed recently, where the 401k trustee lost or stole all the money? While rare, I still would not want my mother stuck out in the cold. And I would prefer not to support her entirely myself, though I might if I had to. But what if I were broke, too? Then who would take care of her. As far as I can tell, the Social Security program is one of the best managed parts of the U.S.Government, even though I might wish it to make, what to me would appear to be, better investments than non-interest paying treasury bonds.

>>>So a person who is an ant, who plans and scrimps and saves for the future, should take care of the grasshopper that doesn't? Didn't the grasshopper die at the end of the parable during the cold, harsh winter while the ant was warm, cozy, and well fed? <<

Before being so harsh, consider that the person on social security may be an old father or grandmother of yours.<<<<<<<<<<

I agree here.... especially since I think the ant took in the grasshopper for the winter and properly chastized him.<g> Yes, we must certainly think of others.

But my question is: Even if SS survives, just exactly what good will it do for all but the destitute? Another way to ask this is: When I become eligible for payments in 25 years, I'll be getting $800 a month. I don't have my inflation calculator handy... but in 25 years it just seems to me that will be nothing more than beer money.

I just get this sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach when I think of all I've put into SS, and what I'll get back (even with best-case scenario). Eeesh.

Regards,

orangeblood

Miscellaneous replies, followed by answers most people don't want to hear.

<<Maybe SS is like medicine, doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth, but it can help you.>>

<<...I still would not want my mother stuck out in the cold. And I would prefer not to support her entirely myself,...>>

<<I agree here.... especially since I think the ant took in the grasshopper for the winter and properly chastized him.<g>>>

Ask how many people would *prefer* to pay for anything entirely by themselves or have the responsibility passed along to society. Welcome to the great American welfare state. BTW, does the "lifeboat scenario" sound familiar? Oh, life can certainly be cruel and hard and never fair, and I would sacrifice for my family to correct whatever misfortunes I can, but I won't sacrifice for your family. Very few people are that altruistic. While you may retort that losing 7.65% of my income is hardly a great self-sacrifice, please present this argument a few generations from now when there will only be two workers per retiree and a 7.65% tax will be referred to as the good old days. Then tell those people why they should pay for you while trying to provide for their own children.

As for the grasshopper, in the original story he died. It was only after Democrats determined that federally mandated entitlement programs should save us from ourselves that the politically correct ending was added.

If you want an answer that is neither coldly calculated nor flippant, try a simple word; community. First, realize that retirement is NOT a right. It's a concept that is very new to mankind (yes, relatively new even in U.S. history) and not very well thought out. But before this concept came to be, it was the community (family, neighbors, church, etc.) that provided the safety net (and while I won't sacrifice for your family, I do contribute to my community). Give people a choice and "local" will always draw a stronger response than "national". When the safety net became a federalized project, let's just say that the ropes were rewoven to form a noose instead. Politicians aren't willing to hang themselves by making changes that are necessary to keep SS solvent, so you better hope that communities don't become obsolete.

tc001 said:

>>>Miscellaneous replies, followed by answers most people don't want to hear. <snippage>...
As for the grasshopper, in the original story he died. It was only after Democrats determined that federally mandated entitlement programs should save us from ourselves that the politically correct ending was added.<<<

Did you major in storytelling?<g> I've learned (since my children were born) that these fables differ from book to book, and I doubt very seriously if you know the original version. Oh, and I also didn't realize Republicans weren't allowed to vote on the SS program.


>>>While you may retort that losing 7.65% of my income is hardly a great self-sacrifice.....<<<

I don't think *anyone* here would retort thusly!


>>>Politicians aren't willing to hang themselves by making changes that are necessary to keep SS solvent, so you better hope that communities don't become obsolete.<<<

Yep, and you passed right over the rest of my post where I said as much. What will be left when you and I retire will be beer money. I just honestly can not see a way out of this.

Regards,

orangeblood

We all pay for things we neither want or nedd and often don't receive in this life. Nuclear power, bigger bombs, subsidies to zillion dollars corporations are just a few that come out of my pocket. They don't help me or my parents pay the bills. Stop crying and try to make the best of what you have.

JeanDavid worte:

One return, that IMO has some value, is the GUARANTEED payments, something like an annuity, that you get from Social Security that you get from no other. Even if your stock market account goes to zero value, even if
the insurance company that wrote your annuity went bankrupt, you would still get your social security. The
underperformance, by most standards, of the Social Security system is the price paid for the certainty of
payment: something that no other investment provides.

_-_-_-_-_

Sounds good JD. Except that the return for many people on their SS contributions being made NOW will be negative. Suppose I buy some term ins., a little disability policy, and then earn 15% on the rest. easy to beat SS. For those drawing benefits now, it has been a windfall. Politicians ruined the program by greatly increasing the benefits over the years. They did not understand that there was supposed to be a surplus in the fund.

<Ask how many people would *prefer* to pay for anything entirely by themselves or have the responsibility passed along to society. Welcome to the great American welfare state. BTW, does the "lifeboat scenario" sound familiar? Oh, life can certainly be cruel and hard and never fair, and I would sacrifice for my family to correct whatever misfortunes I can, but I won't sacrifice for your family. Very few people are that altruistic.>

I do not think it is a case of altruism, but just common decency as a member of a society.

< While you may retort that losing 7.65% of my income is hardly a great self-sacrifice, please present this argument a few generations from now when there will only be two workers per retiree and a 7.65% tax will be referred to as the good old days. Then tell those people why they should pay for you while trying to provide for their own children.>

I do think the investments made by the Social Security Administration need to be better considered, but they are limited by the laws passed by congress for their own political ends.

< [snip]

If you want an answer that is neither coldly calculated nor flippant, try a simple word; community.>

I think it a great insight of yours to bring up community. It is my belief that as the size and complexity of the economy have increased, the only community that makes economic sense these days is the community that includes the entire nation. For better or worse, that community can best carry out its actions on a national level (though not to the exclusion of smaller micro (by comparison)-economies, such as states, counties, cities, churches, fraternal organizations, etc.). As a community, we MUST provide for those unable to provide for themselves, either through improvidence (such as the grasshopper in the example), misfortune (as in the recent case of the 401(k) that went broke, or because the person had just gotten off welfare and had to work part-time for sub-minimum wage for an entire working life and thus not able to save anything; this is an unescapable moral imperative that we can dodge only at the risk of more serious consequences of which armed revolution is one (note likely, I admit).

<First, realize that retirement is NOT a right. It's a concept that is very new to mankind (yes, relatively new even in U.S. history) and not very well thought out. But before this concept came to be, it was the community (family, neighbors, church, etc.) that provided the safety net (and while I won't sacrifice for your family, I do contribute to my community). Give people a choice and "local" will always draw a stronger response than "national".>

When the Reagan-Bush administration made drastic cuts to social programs, suggesting that local charitable organizations would be able to take up the slack, someone calculated how much would be required for each church in the country to pick up the expense, in addition to what they do already. The amount for a small one, such as I attend, to do this was more than the total income of all the members. While mine was instrumental at setting up the local soup-kitchen that serves well over 100 guests per day (lunch only), and at providing an affordable place to live (by no means free, however) for a couple of dozen people, we would be in no way able to provide for retirement for those too old, or otherwise unable, to work.

<When the safety net became a federalized project, let's just say that the ropes were rewoven to form a noose instead. Politicians aren't willing to hang themselves by making changes that are necessary to keep SS solvent, so you better hope that communities don't become obsolete.>

Politicians have a lot to answer for. I believe changes are required in the investment policy of the Social Security system, though what those changes should be is by no means clear. Local communities will continue to exist to handle local problems and opportunities, but some problems and opportunities are national in scope and local communities are ill-equipped to handle them.

<One return, that IMO has some value, is the GUARANTEED payments, something like an annuity, that you get from Social Security that you get from no other. Even if your stock market account goes to zero value, even if the insurance company that wrote your annuity went bankrupt, you would still get your social security. The underperformance, by most standards, of the Social Security system is the pricepaid for the certainty of
payment: something that no other investment provides.

_-_-_-_-_

Sounds good JD. Except that the return for many people on their SS contributions being made NOW will be negative.>

It may well be, but one never knows. It depends on how long they live. The social security will be paid to them until they die, even if they live to 130 years of age. Only annuities by infallible insurance companies can guarantee that. If you are wealthy enough to invest a sufficient sum in various things (Stocks, bonds, gold, Swiss Francs, the right Real Estate), you may come close to that level of security, but you cannot be sure of it.

< Suppose I buy some term ins., a little disability policy, and then earn 15% on the rest. easy to beat SS.>

Good idea. Then 1929 comes along, you get an 80% dip in the size of your portfolio and it takes 25 years to get even, much less produce any increase. What do you live on during those 25 years? It is easy to say that things have changed since then, as they have, but they thought so then, too.

<For those drawing benefits now, it has been a windfall. Politicians ruined the program by greatly increasing the benefits over the years. They did not understand that there was supposed to be a surplus in the fund.>

There IS a surplus in the fund. The reason it is hard to see is that congress embezzeled it to paper-over the deficit of the federal budget. But the congress will have to raise the taxes someday to make it up and pay back that "loan." They (and of course, by "They" I mean us, of course, there being no free lunch) should be paying market interest on the borrowed money, but that would raise the apparent federal deficit even more. Anyone think congress needs roasting over a slow fire?

<Did you major in storytelling?<g>>

Sorry, orangeblood, but that's the fun of storytelling! I'm hoping to create a legacy for future generations with my version of the truth being handed down and recounted time and again, preferably to high school drop-outs who think welfare is an early retirement package for the clever.

<..this is an unescapable moral imperative...>

JeanDavid, you win on that argument. Being of low moral character I can't defend against anyone who moves to the high ground. I am trying to mend my ways, though, by carefully studying Clinton to learn how to feel everyone's pain. Hmm, maybe that irreverent comment will cost me a few more days burning in hell.

<When the Reagan-Bush administration made drastic cuts to social programs...>

I'm taking up a collection to build a monument to all the people who starved to death in America during the Reagan-Bush years. At this point no donations are necessary. (OK, I'll get a few more days in hell.)

<I do think the investments made by the Social Security Administration need to be better considered...>

I'm willing to be serious for a minute... ("So where was the funny part?", you ask.)

My original comment: First, realize that retirement is NOT a right. It's a concept that is very new to mankind (yes, relatively new even in U.S. history) and not very well thought out.

My brief thoughts on a complex issue: I'm not an expert on foreign economies, but I look at Chile (with an *apparently* workable system) and France (with a system out of control where everyone gets everything they want just by holding out their hands) and I wait for France's economy to implode so we can see our future and then start focusing on Chile's solution. A major problem I see is the matter of birthrates, higher being better. But if that's the key factor in keeping SS going then the (federally managed) retirement concept really is poorly conceived. Unfortunately we're already stuck with it.

TC001,

Regarding your comments about social security, I agree with you completely that the system is in need of revision. When it was put in place, there were 30+ payors for every recipient and then current life expectencies guaranteed that most people didn't collect for more than a few years at best. It cannot possibly continue under it's current structure and remain fiscally sound. I made the point in a long ago post that either eligibility rules will narrow further or benefits are certain to drop.

But I do have a different take than you on some items:

<<First, realize that retirement is NOT a right. It's a concept that is very new to mankind (yes, relatively new even in U.S. history) and not very well thought out.>>

If working until you die is the concept that you wish to follow, by all means, do so, but leave me out. I don't intend to drop out of the human race, but neither will I be putting in a 40+ hour week. We retire, because we can afford to retire. To me, that's progress. Few people would choose to retire voluntarily on just their social security benefit.

<<If you want an answer that is neither coldly calculated nor flippant, try a simple word; community...it was the community (family, neighbors, church, etc.) that provided the safety net (and while I won't sacrifice for your family, I do contribute to my community).>>

A most valid point, but we're no longer in the days when people spend their whole lives in one place and have to depend on each other (and ONLY each other) to get the crops in or build a barn. The essence of community is ever-expanding. The U.S. is a community too, and the world for that matter. Economies and well-being are intertwined to levels unparalleled in history. Your community no longer ends at the town line.

<<Give people a choice and "local" will always draw a stronger response than "national".>>

No argument here, everyone would prefer to have some say in where their money goes. But what's to prevent people from moving to an area that offers better community support and that influx threatens to swamp the program? The federal government can provide a breadth of resources unavailable at the local level.

<<When the safety net became a federalized project, let's just say that the ropes were rewoven to form a noose instead.>>

The social security program was a godsend when it was created. The fact that the demographics on which it was constructed have so radically changed is no reason to damn the initial goals of the program. The fact that future lawmakers haven't revised it IS the problem.

<<Politicians aren't willing to hang themselves by making changes that are necessary to keep SS solvent, so you better hope that communities don't become obsolete.>>

Politician's aren't known for being long-range thinkers...and even those that are generally want to stay in office. They are loathe to do anything unpopular until it reaches a crisis stage...and we're getting there.

JeanDavid wrote:
> As a community, we MUST provide for those unable to
> provide for themselves, either through improvidence
> (such as the grasshopper in the example), misfortune
> (as in the recent case of the 401(k) that went broke,
> or because the person had just gotten off welfare and
> had to work part-time for sub-minimum wage for
> an entire working life and thus not able to save
> anything

I would ask _WHY_ must we provide for those unable to
provide for themselves, especially those that do not
want to work or plan, but want to live off others
(grasshoppers).

As for misfortune and other cases, it seems to me that
those people should first go to their immediate family,
then their extended family, then their friends,
then their church (or mosque or synagogue), then their
community, etc.

Now I do realize the one major problem with my view;
many people now have dysfunctional families. :(
That makes relying on them for help more difficult.

Finally I disagree that a person working part-time for
sub-minimum wage for an entire working life cannot save
anything. It is a matter of priorities. Which is more
important, the big screen TV with a Sony PlayStation
("bought" from a Rent-to-Own store) or scrimping and
saving for a rainy day? Everyone has heard stories
of both kinds - where the poor go from rags to riches
while others stay mired in poverty.

What can be done to fix Social Security? First,
recognize that there is _NO_ government surplus this
year, or in the years to come. Sure the GAO says
that the U.S. will have a surplus right now of ~$9B,
but the government borrows ~$124B from the trust
funds. That is a deficit of ~$115B.

(I do grant that a deficit of ~$115B looks a lot better
than the huge deficits of recent years. Oh, and
before someone jumps on these numbers, they are all
approximate. Hence the little squiggly "~".)

Admitting the truth is the first step to recovery.

Second, realize that both taxes increased and spending
cut. Thus far the "cuts" in our budget have been
at the expense of Defense. Actually, the cuts are
really not even cuts. The budget is still increasing
in size. In 1997, the budget was $1.60T. In 1998,
it will be $1.66T. See step one on Admitting the Truth.

So either cut real spending (Big Yeah!) or at least
hold it flat (little yeah!). While I think taxes are
too high and would love to see them cut, I am
realistic. Then again, I am in favor of a tax code
where you know how much you are paying. See step one,
again.

As for my own retirement, I plan to :

(a) Work till I die. It is just that after I "retire",
the work I do will be what I enjoy.

(b) Not count on SS.

(c) Scrimp, save, minimize debt, maximize income.

LifeGuard

DrBear, your counterpoints are valid and I can actually agree with most of them, except:

1)<<First, realize that retirement is NOT a right. It's a concept that is very new to mankind (yes,
relatively new even in U.S. history) and not very well thought out.>>
<We retire, because we can afford to retire. To me, that's progress.>

That's my point. You're defining retirement as a privilege to be earned. There is no absolute entitlement to it (like life, liberty, items contained in the Bill of Rights, etc.). Look at the outcry that occurs when the suggestion is made that the retirement age (or more correctly, the age at which you can collect full SS benefits) should continue to rise along with life expectancy.

People have come to believe that they have an absolute, God-given, stars'n'stripes American right to retire at 65! It's funny that almost no one believes anything the goverment says except in regard to this retirement age which has somehow been carved in stone right up there on Mt. Rushmore. You get the idea.

<But what's to prevent people from moving to an area that offers better community support and that influx
threatens to swamp the program? The federal government can provide a breadth of resources unavailable at the local level.>

Both you and JeanDavid very correctly saw the shortsightedness of my comment on community involvement. My only thought is to look at the trend (from federal back to state) with welfare benefits. (I'm thinking of writing a book about this. I might title it "Megatrends". Naw. It probably wouldn't sell.) I just want to see the final result because, as you might guess, I have a problem with how that federal program is run, too.

JD,
You certainly make some good points. Most of them can be summed by saying that The United States of America is a very rich country. With all of this wealth, no one should freeeze to death or starve.

However, where I disagree with you is the extent those who choose to live on the dole are responsible for making SOME contribution. Why should a family with tow parents working pay taxes to support a family where no one works at all. Why should I have to use my after tax dollars from my relatively modest income to pay for the college education of my children when others get it for free without tax. When I pay my health insurance premiums, that cost me about $12,000 per year in pre-tax dollars, should I get anything more than the people that pay nothing. How many times do I have to keep building housing for the poor. My own home is over 50 years old. There is an unlimited demand for free housing. Look at NY City. How come it is my responsibility for the thirteen year old girls having babies. I didn't do it.

Look at what was done by the early Americans. They crossed the Appalachian Mountains with a Bible, ax, and a plow. Made a life for themselves and their families and tamed the wilderness. All without unemployment insurance. Question is, if there was no unemployment insurance, would there be any unemployment?

<<losing 7.65% of my income is hardly a great self-sacrifice>>

Of course, 7.65% wouldn't be so bad if:

--It weren't, in reality, around double that, since your employer pitches in that amount again on your behalf (read: your salary is around 7 1/2% lower than it should have been)
--Federal income taxes
--State taxes
--Local taxes
--Property taxes
--Gas taxes
--Sales taxes
--etc., etc., etc.

I'm no hard-line libertarian, who thinks that the government should only pay for public goods like defense.

But I am miffed that the deck is seriously stacked against anyone who even want to try to get out of the Social Security retirement trap. The trap being: average checks of around $765 a month (someone please tell me: after a LIFETIME of giving, what's so Secure about $765/mo????), and no transfer of wealth to your descendants upon death. Your kids end up right back in the trap.

Surprisingly enough, there are a handful of Congressman looking to propose that individuals be able to redirect PART of their SS contribution to private funds (2-3%). Probably won't be actually passed anytime soon. No crisis...no rush, right??

I'm lucky enough to make enough to be able to put back for retirement in spite of it all. But if I made 25% or so less than I do now (which is what most of my friends in my age group [25-30] make), it would be awfully tough.....

Shealy

If Social Security is so efficient, if it is "different" than all the other welfare agencies, sucking our financial resources dry, why must we keeping "saving" it?

Jimmy Carter's SS "save" was supposed to make the system solvent well into the next century. As we all know, the next century arrived in the early 1980's.

Since then, SS has been "saved" for us so many times--the next one is coming soon, too--it's laughable. With ever larger numbers of people approaching retirement age and fewer people left to pay for it, there is only one real solution--other than abolishing it--that can be achieved: raise taxes ever higher.

And for what? Negative returns. Abolish the system--gradually if you must to "protect" the poor slobs who have not the foresight to provide for themselves. But abolish it we must if we want to protect the vast rest of us.

< JeanDavid wrote:
> As a community, we MUST provide for those unable to
> provide for themselves, either through improvidence
> (such as the grasshopper in the example), misfortune
> (as in the recent case of the 401(k) that went roke,
> or because the person had just gotten off welfare
> and had to work part-time for sub-minimum wage for
> an entire working life and thus not able to save
> anything

I would ask _WHY_ must we provide for those unable to
provide for themselves, especially those that do not
want to work or plan, but want to live off others
(grasshoppers). >

I view it a a moral duty; one of the responsabilities we assume when agreeing to the social contract. It is evident to me that you do not see it this way.

<As for misfortune and other cases, it seems to me that those people should first go to their immediate family, then their extended family, then their friends, then their church (or mosque or synagogue), then their community, etc.>

All very well, but you have evidently not attempted to deal with the many people who have neither immediate nor extended families, no friends, no church, and whose legal community denies that they even exist. The most common treatment for these problems has been one of denial, or if the people become too conspicuous, imprisonment. This attitude was the attitude of the Mr. Scrooge before his enlightenment. But when working with an organization that tried, in a local community, to provide food and housing for those people who could not manage by themselves, I found it all to easy to say they should rely on the support systems to which you allude, but do not really exist with sufficient economic power to do much. Many of these people have been kicked out of psychiatric hospitals because of reduced government spending on social programs and dumped onto the street. It is all very well to say that the local community (churches, fraternal organizations, etc.) should take care of them, but it is not a practical solution except for a very limited proportion of the cases.

<Now I do realize the one major problem with my view;
many people now have dysfunctional families. :(
That makes relying on them for help more difficult.

Finally I disagree that a person working part-time for sub-minimum wage for an entire working life cannot save anything. It is a matter of priorities. Which is more important, the big screen TV with a Sony PlayStation ("bought" from a Rent-to-Own store) or scrimping and saving for a rainy day? Everyone has heard stories of both kinds - where the poor go from rags to riches while others stay mired in poverty.>

Some people do not have that problem. Some must decide whether to pay the electric bill for the heat, pay the rent, or eat. That is a very real problem for some. They must take a taxi to the wellfare office to show that they are looking for work (no public transportation), they cannot afford to go to stores with the lower prices but must shop locally in higher priced stores (same reason) or take a taxi to the cheaper places, etc. You, evidently, do not know how really tough it is out there for those too poor to be able to save money. They often cannot even be able to save money by buying the "large economy size" of things since they do not have the money up front to buy them, and their refrigerators are not reliable enough to store them.

<What can be done to fix Social Security? First, recognize that there is _NO_ government surplus this year, or in the years to come. Sure the GAO says that the U.S. will have a surplus right now of ~$9B, but the government borrows ~$124B from the trust funds. That is a deficit of ~$115B.>

If there were the political will, an economy such as ours should surely be able to provide a modest retirement program so that the poorest of the poor could live decently. IMO, one of the best cost-cutting measures would be to cut the defense budget in half, since the expenditure there is totally wasted. But there are other non-productive programs as well that should be considered. Perhaps we, as a nation, can no longer afford a military department whose expenses are greater now, when we have no serious enemies, that at the height of World War II. It seems to me that the purpose of the military today is to continue to assure our multinational corporations the right to boss other countries and people around, to impose low prices on their exports and high prices on their imports. To suppress any effort at forming meaningful trade unions, etc. Look our policy in Central and South America over the last 100 years or so if you need any evidence of this.

<(I do grant that a deficit of ~$115B looks a lot better than the huge deficits of recent years. Oh, and before someone jumps on these numbers, they are all approximate. Hence the little squiggly "~".)

Admitting the truth is the first step to recovery.

Second, realize that both taxes increased and spending cut. Thus far the "cuts" in our budget have been at the expense of Defense. Actually, the cuts are really not even cuts. The budget is still increasing in size. In 1997, the budget was $1.60T. In 1998, it will be $1.66T. See step one on Admitting the Truth.

So either cut real spending (Big Yeah!) or at least hold it flat (little yeah!). While I think taxes are too high and would love to see them cut, I am realistic. Then again, I am in favor of a tax code where you know how much you are paying. See step one, again.

As for my own retirement, I plan to :

(a) Work till I die. It is just that after I "retire",
the work I do will be what I enjoy.

(b) Not count on SS.

(c) Scrimp, save, minimize debt, maximize income.>

<Look at what was done by the early Americans. They crossed the Appalachian Mountains with a Bible, ax, and a plow.>

... and a gun to kill off the former inhabitants of the place. That was a giant subsidy they received from the former inhabitants.

< Made a life for themselves and their families and tamed the wilderness. All without unemployment insurance. Question is, if there was no unemployment insurance, would there be any unemployment?>

There would certainly be unemployment. Unless they died.

As far as education goes, the founding fathers of this country felt there should be education for all (so they could vote intelligently, for one thing, and so they could be clerks in the general stores, for another). Just as public education was felt necessary at a grade-school level in the 17th and 18th century, so, I happen to believe, is a college education these days. I happen to believe that an education should be a right, not a priviledge in any nation that calls itself civilized. I have yet to convince the congress of this, as you may have noticed.
I feel the same about medical care. I believe a single-payer system would reduce the costs of operating the current medical insurance companies that consume in excess of $0.20 of every insurance dollar. I feel adequate medical coverage for everyone should be a recognized legal right. If some other nations already manage this, I think it an ambarassing shame that the richest nation that ever existed should not do the same.

JeanDavid wrote:
> I view it a a moral duty; one of the responsabilities
> we assume when agreeing to the social contract. It is
> evident to me that you do not see it this way.

You are correct. I do not see it this way. I do not
see that I am morally obligated to take care of people
who do not work or plan.

Those who do work and plan, but face some misfortune
(a flood, an F5 tornado, war, famine, real disability,
etc. ) I do not mind helping at all. Still I think
help should come locally first and not from the federal
level.

If I give $100 to someone that needs help. They get
all the money. If I gave it to the United Way to give
it to them, they get something like $86. While I do
not know what the overhead for the federal government
is, I will bet that the United Way does a better job.

> ...and whose legal community denies that they even
> exist.

I do not know who you are referring to here. If it is
the homeless, then I will agree that we do not need to
put blinders on and say they do not exist. Some
homeless do need and want help. Others are like the
guy I saw holding a sign asking for money saying 'Why
lie, I just want a beer.'

> You, evidently, do not know how really tough it is
> out there for those too poor to be able to save
> money.

Actually, I do realize how tough it is. I live in
the poorest state in the Union and do charity work
to help mitigate that. I know firsthand how some
of the poor have big screen TVs while living in shacks
and others work hard, but are swimming against a strong
tide. The later get my money, and more importantly,
my time. A big government program will not pick up
on the difference between the two groups.

> IMO, one of the best cost-cutting measures would be
> to cut the defense budget in half ...

I disagree, and agree. Hey, I work in the defense
sector. There is a lot of waste. Do we really need
the B-2? No. The space station? No. The F-117?
Yep. V-22? Yep. All of this is IMO.

Some projects are welfare to keep the industrial
base around to build big weapons in case of another
large war. (A dubious argument, and not one that I
agree with. I just present it here.)

The defense budget for 1997 was $272B. For 1998
it is $265B. That is a real drop in dollars as
well as percentage (17% to 15.8%). That is predicted
to remain flat till 2002. (For what that is worth!)

The payments on interest on the debt alone is $243B
or 14.5%. Talk about wasted money. Imagine what we
could do with that 14%.

Oh, and Social Security weighs in at 22.6% of the
budget at $378B in 1998. In 2002 that climbs to
24% (if the numbers are to be believed).

As you can tell, I do not trust projected numbers
for the budget, but since that is all I have to
work with...

If we did keep the budget flat from 1997 to 1998,
and we did not, then we would have an extra $67B
or 4% of the budget. That is right folks, our budget
grows by 3~4% a year. Inflation last year was half
that, and it is overstated by a percantage point!
Does it really need to grow by that much each year?

Now our debt was $3.8T! That $67B surplus would
only pay off 1.7% of the national debt. Of course,
that $67B is an immaginary number. In reality our
budget increased, and current projections are that
we will run a $9B surplus this year (subject to
change daily).

My point is this: If we kept a flat budget, say 1997's
$1.6T budget, and continued to grow tax collections,
projected to be $1.95T in 2002, then the national debt
could be shaved down to $2.8T. The interest would
fall to about $181B. The interest savings could shore
up Social Security. Of course to keep a flat budget,
defense, domestic spending, SS, etc. would have to be
cut.

Dang! I forgot. This means we would have to be
fiscally responsible. :-P

LifeGuard

I'm just wondering when any of us agreed to this so-called "social contract?" It wasn't asked of us, rather it was forced on us.

A "social contract" is nothing more than a euphemism to getting others to pay for social services that we think ought to be paid for.

Isn't there a "social contract" for a large national defense budget? Then why do many who call for greater social spending argue so vociferously against defense spending? Why is one "social contract" more valid than another?

The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as a "social contract." It's just lingual gymnastics performed to justify a person's use of force.

I would imagine this folder is not the best place to be arguing whether Social Security should survive but if we're taking votes, count me on the side of those who would like to see it abolished.

><><
Miscellaneous replies, followed by answers most people don't want to hear.

<<Maybe SS is like medicine, doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth, but it can help you.>>

<<...I still would not want my mother stuck out in the cold. And I would prefer not to support her
entirely myself,...>>

<<I agree here.... especially since I think the ant took in the grasshopper for the winter and
properly chastized him.<g>>>
><><><

From what I have been able to tell; Social Security is performing Extremely well - it is the Congress that is stealing the money from it to cover its a**. Most of the National Debt is owed to the SSA. If the SSA had been left to its own to accumulate interest, it would survive well into the next millenium (Well, at least the next century)

TTMan