Who has a better chance of winning with Obama?

[DGuller]

Do you ever have any idea of what you're trying to say?  I sure don't.  How about explaining the points you're trying to make, instead of trying to sound too clever for comprehension?

Learn to fucking read.  Instead of bleeding out SSTF money to retirees for the remainders of their lives, we invest in career reeducation; not only do the beneficiaries stop collecting much sooner, they resume paying into Social Security once they're settled into more appropriate employment.  What the hell is so difficult to comprehend about that?

Lots of people don't want to work; we shouldn't reward it just because they're old.

So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought you said it was insurance. 

[DGuller]

I thought you said it was insurance. 

Pension is insurance.

[DontSayBanana]

So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

[MadImmortalMan]

So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

It kinda already is that way.

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

[Admiral Yi]

Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

I think so.  Not absolutely sure.

[MadImmortalMan]

Shelf: another thought about your 2/3, 50% data point: women who've never worked.  Women who've never worked won't have any income/assets of their own but often have a husband who does.

Do women who've never worked get social security?  In the UK they don't get a full state pension.

Yes she gets her own. I'm not sure but I think that if the husband dies, the widow gets to keep either her own or her husband's SSA, whichever is higher. I remember a conversation with my grandmother about that some years ago. Maybe my grandma worked for a year or two at some point, I dunno.

[Sheilbh]

I think so.  Not absolutely sure.

They get 50% of your rate after the full retirement age.  If they've got their own work record then they get that whichever is higher.  There are other rules in case of widows/widowers and divorces after 10 years of marriage.

[Sheilbh]

Done some looking into the married couple thing.  Social Security is more than 50% of income for around 51% of married couples, but 73% of unmarried beneficiaries - I imagine that's especially the case because of the relatively high number of unmarried, often widowed, women in the age group.  Interestingly Social Security is more than 90% of income for 34% of beneficiaries, including 21% of married couples and 43% of unmarried beneficiaries.

Edit: Interestingly as a % of earnings in the over 65s earnings are at the highest level since the early 60s, asset income's around the same level (but grew a lot in the early 90s it's declined and flatlined since then).  I'm surprised that Social Security's been more or less flatlining since the 70s, with a recent dip and other pensions (whether public or private) has flatlined for 20 years or so.

As I say I imagine the next time the SSA release this research - based on 2010 figures, due in 2012 - it'll show more dependence on Social Security and earnings given the havoc wreaked on pension plans in the last couple of years.

[DGuller]

So you're saying that Social Security should be converted from being mainly a pension program to being a job education program?

Mainly, yes.  Disability shouldn't be axed, but individual retirement accounts have made social security redundant and should be pressed as a primary source of income for those intent on retiring.

That misses the original intention of Social Security being a guarantee of some income in retirement.  Yes, many people might have individual retirement accounts, but there is no guarantee with those.  You could lose them or piss them away.  Social Security is always there. 

I was also confused because you called retirement benefits "net-loss social welfare".  Retirement benefits may have some welfare component to them, but typically care is being taken to differentiate them from welfare payments.

[MadImmortalMan]

The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

There is this nugget of info:

President Roosevelt argued before the passage of the Social Security Act that it was a forced savings program, effectively insurance. This was challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds, at which point President Roosevelt's lawyers changed their tune and told the truth: It's just a tax-and-benefit program. No savings, no accounts. Roosevelt won the constitutional argument in the courts.

Anybody know what case this is and what the conclusion was?

[Valmy]

Roosevelt was sure a genius at spinning stuff politically to get things passed.  Lend-Lease...yep the Brits are going to give us back our Lees and Grants any day now...and presenting SS as a savings account program.

[DGuller]

The investing news community seems highly in favor of calling it a ponzi, apparently. There is one thing I'd like to know more about. In this piece:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11245193/1/addressing-social-securitys-ponzi-scheme.html

Investors and business owners can be some of the dumbest people around when it comes to macroeconomics.  You only need to watch a couple of hours of CNBC to come to that conclusion.