Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[DGuller]

More generally, the insurable event is not dying.  Annuity is an insurance policy against outliving your assets.

A type of insurance for which it is very germane to discuss your other assets and whether you will outlive them.

Who says they shouldn't be.  What I took issue with was discussing the assets on average terms. 

As I said, discussing insurance by use of averages is daft (and that was putting it mildly, on account of me not expecting non-insurance people to have an intuitive understanding of it).  It is daft because of two very fundamental reasons that cause insurance to exist in the first place.

The first fundamental reaon is that on an individual level, things are not average.  Every American does not experience $200 of loss from fire every year.  It's 1 out of 400 Americans who suffers an $80,000 loss from fire, and the 399 others suffer none. 

The second reason is that people do not have a linear utility function.  They prefer to lose $250 consistently every year rather than take a 0.25% chance of losing $80,000.  When you have non-linear functions, you cannot get an average output by putting in an average input, which is what you were doing in that $139K point you were making.

[MadImmortalMan]

So, be happy that we're losing money, because if we suddenly had a rare event that fucked us over for life, that same shitty ROI would suddenly be an awesome return. Win.

[Admiral Yi]

Who says they shouldn't be.  What I took issue with was discussing the assets on average terms. 

As I said, discussing insurance by use of averages is daft (and that was putting it mildly, on account of me not expecting non-insurance people to have an intuitive understanding of it).  It is daft because of two very fundamental reasons that cause insurance to exist in the first place.

The first fundamental reaon is that on an individual level, things are not average.  Every American does not experience $200 of loss from fire every year.  It's 1 out of 400 Americans who suffers an $80,000 loss from fire, and the 399 others suffer none. 

The second reason is that people do not have a linear utility function.  They prefer to lose $250 consistently every year rather than take a 0.25% chance of losing $80,000.  When you have non-linear functions, you cannot get an average output by putting in an average input, which is what you were doing in that $139K point you were making.

The basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

[DGuller]

So, be happy that we're losing money, because if we suddenly had a rare event that fucked us over for life, that same shitty ROI would suddenly be an awesome return. Win.

Living too long isn't so rare these days.

[MadImmortalMan]

The basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

We could, but it's supposed to be something that everyone takes advantage of so there's no welfare stigma. That said, we're probably going to end up doing what you suggest with the first step away from that idea being the removal of the SSA tax cap.

[derspiess]

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Re-distributive as it would be, I'd be okay with that if it's part of a greater overhaul.

[Sheilbh]

The basic problem with this entire line of argumentation is that it supposes a false dichotomous choice: either everyone gets their current SS benefits or no one does.  I presented the information from Kinsley to rebut Shelf's claim that retirees are counting on it and (presumably) will be greatly inconvenienced if they lose it.  Or some fate much worse than inconvenience.  There is a large part of the retiree population for whom the loss of benefits would not even be noticeable.

Social Security represents around 37% of total income for retirement age people, the next largest is earnings at 30%.  Then private pensions and assets at 19% and 13% respectively.  Having said that over two thirds of eligible people depend on Social Security for over 50% of their income.  That was the information from 2008 released in 2010, I imagine it's probably more Social Security-skewed because of the effect the financial crisis will have had on people's pension plans.

So I think your Kinsley factoid is just a factoid rather than a contribution when thinking about this.

[Ideologue]

Easy solution: remove social security, substitute the guaranteed income. :friedman:

[Sheilbh]

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Social Security's an issue but the enormous pressure in your old people is the US's unsustainable inflation of healthcare costs and the effect that has on Medicare.  By comparison Social Security's manageable.

[Ideologue]

We could means test SS to save the subsistence part of it while eliminating some of the enormous pressure on public finances.

Social Security's an issue but the enormous pressure in your old people is the US's unsustainable inflation of healthcare costs and the effect that has on Medicare.  By comparison Social Security's manageable.

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

[garbon]

Colbert isn't funny.

This.

[MadImmortalMan]

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

You know what to do.

[Ideologue]

Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

[Sheilbh]

Colbert is funny for about five minutes at a time; beyond that, his schtick grows wan and tired.

I like him.  But I only see the clips that do well and bounce around the internet.  Don't actually watch his show.

Probably for a similar reason I quite Bill O'Reilly and kind of like Glenn Beck

[Ideologue]

They could just resign themselves to dying.  Why is that so hard?

You know what to do.

I voted for Death Panels.  Where are they?