Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[Admiral Yi]

Historical Social Security tax rates (double it to include employer contribution).

1937-49 1.000
1950      1.500
1951-53 1.500
1954-56 2.000
1957-58 2.250
1959      2.500
1960-61 3.000
1962       3.125
1963-65  3.625
1966       3.850
1967       3.900
1968      3.800
1969-70 4.200
1971-72 4.600
1973      4.850
1974-77 4.950
1978      5.050
1979-80 5.080
1981      5.350
1982-83 5.400
1984 a   5.700
1986-87 5.700
1988-89 6.060
1990      6.200

As you can see Shelf boomers throughout their earning lifetimes paid a noticeably lower rate than the people they expect to support them in retirement.

You can say it would be unfair to cut benefits now, but how is it fairer to raise rates?

Zoupa: you didn't get a mention because you're a plain vanilla psycho stalker, whereas DGuller was talking specifically about the label of political nut.

[Zoupa]

That's not true. I usually like your posts or find them funny, when it's not about your right wing soap box.

[Sheilbh]

You can say it would be unfair to cut benefits now, but how is it fairer to raise rates?

Because cutting benefits now is effectively retroactive which is wrong whether it's applied to cutting benefits or raising (or cutting taxes). 

[Admiral Yi]

Because cutting benefits now is effectively retroactive which is wrong whether it's applied to cutting benefits or raising (or cutting taxes).

Wut?  It would not be fair to cut benefits and it would not be fair to raise tax rates?

[Sheilbh]

Wut?  It would not be fair to cut benefits and it would not be fair to raise tax rates?

Retroactively, yes.

[Admiral Yi]

Retroactively, yes.

Gotcha.

Well, by that logic it seems the earliest we could contemplate cutting benefits is 2059, when people who are currently 17 start retiring.

[Sheilbh]

Well, by that logic it seems the earliest we could contemplate cutting benefits is 2059, when people who are currently 17 start retiring.

I think it's fine to re-design the system, which won't necessarily mean cutting benefits, for future generations and, in effect, phase in any reforms.  Younger people will know that they (and I think probably do know) they won't be getting social security as is and the younger they are means they can make plans to deal with that.

I think cutting benefits for people who've been expecting the system to work a certain way and paying in for their working lives is simply arbitrary and unfair.

[DontSayBanana]

Yi, you're skirting the number one fallacy about Social Security.  Per the automated recording I heard almost daily at my last job, "Social Security is not an individual retirement account.  The money you pay to Social Security today goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits today."

The "shelf boomers" paid a lower rate because they were supporting the generation before them, which cost less to support.  It's a wealth redistribution mechanism, sure, but it has nothing to do with "inflated numbers."  The rates are higher because the cost of living is higher and there are more people to cover.  Today, today, today.  There's no promise of a return, which is kind of a necessary element of a ponzi scheme.

[DGuller]

Is making a small cut to their benefits any worse than me not seeing a penny of my contributions when I retire? 

That's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

[Sheilbh]

That's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

Yeah.  The idea that any developed Western economy will end up dropping state pension, in whatever form they're provided, is simply absurd.  We may not get what current retirees are getting, but we'll get something.

[DontSayBanana]

Actually, I too have a beef with social security, and that it's an expensive cultural artifact; it comes from a time when a blue-collar worker had a "shef life" that fell way short of his life expectancy.  In addition to relatively recent legislation about "age discrimination" in the workplace, there are some more flexible options for an older individual to continue earning income.  Disability will always be necessary, but social security retirement may be better invested in retraining opportunities for older individuals to transition into a field where there age won't be such an issue.  In one fell swoop, you've converted a net loss social welfare program into a potentially-net-gain workforce investment program.

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's fine to re-design the system, which won't necessarily mean cutting benefits, for future generations and, in effect, phase in any reforms.  Younger people will know that they (and I think probably do know) they won't be getting social security as is and the younger they are means they can make plans to deal with that.

I think cutting benefits for people who've been expecting the system to work a certain way and paying in for their working lives is simply arbitrary and unfair.

If younger people bury their heads in the sand and expect the same benefits as their grandparents then would cutting their benefits be unfair too?

Interesting little factoid I picked up from an Atlantic article by Michael Kinsley on what the boomers can give back to the US to make up for their selfishness: the average Social Security payout is 139K.  The average estate at death is 139K.  (They probably aren't exactly the same but they were pretty darn close.)  The average retiree has a private pension and private savings sufficient (if we accept Kinsley's info) to finance life in retirement.  Social Security is pure gravy.

[Admiral Yi]

Yi, you're skirting the number one fallacy about Social Security.  Per the automated recording I heard almost daily at my last job, "Social Security is not an individual retirement account.  The money you pay to Social Security today goes into the Social Security Trust Fund to pay benefits today."

The "shelf boomers" paid a lower rate because they were supporting the generation before them, which cost less to support.  It's a wealth redistribution mechanism, sure, but it has nothing to do with "inflated numbers."  The rates are higher because the cost of living is higher and there are more people to cover.  Today, today, today.  There's no promise of a return, which is kind of a necessary element of a ponzi scheme.

If you pay money now in return for money later, there's a return, either explicit or implicit.

[DGuller]

Actually, I too have a beef with social security, and that it's an expensive cultural artifact; it comes from a time when a blue-collar worker had a "shef life" that fell way short of his life expectancy.

WTF does that even mean?

[Admiral Yi]

That's a false dilemma.  The only way for you to not at the very least get back the majority of your contributions is if criminally misinformed people like you elect policians that would "reform" Social Security away.

You can rest easy Speesh.  You'll get back at least half your contributions.