Social Security, and its cousin Medicare, are running out of money. Its seems that, due to changing demographics and other factors, outlays are growing faster than revenues - and the problem is only getting worse. Economists now say that by 2033, Social Security is doomed. In
Just a couple of points here. As you rightly noted, SS is a government-run Ponzi scheme. It got worse when Congress voted to be able to raids SS funds to pay for other things, which leads to the next point. A big part of the reason for SS' insolvency is paying people who never paid in. How many illegal immigrants are receiving SS payments just because? These never paid into the system and thus should never be paid from it; yet, here we are. Lastly, I do have a small problem with your phase-out plan. I believe those who have paid in, should they choose to drop out, receive back all they paid in. After all, someone like myself who has paid in for decades and is within a decade of the age when government says they will begin paying me back should not be told, "stay on or bend over." That is simply assenting to the government's theft. I never consented to be robbed, yet I've tolerated it, as everyone else does. Unfortunately, unless you are self-employed and willing to deal with the armed jack-boots coming to your door, you have little choice. I don't think such people should be robbed of all they paid in.
You are correct that social security never should have been instituted to begin with - it is not the government's place to force anyone to save for retirement (and as with all funds government gets their hands on, we all know it would be mismanaged from the start). Those who were already forced to pay on shouldn't be punished. Let the government relinquish the money they give to all their pet corporations - the Met, Planned Parenthood, pharmaceutical firms, FEMA, and anyone else (that's all theft also; they have no constitutional authority for such charity) - pay everyone out in full and end the program altogether.
I'm far more pessimistic about salvaging individuals' "contributions."
Fact is, SS is just a tax that supports a social welfare system. There is no "your" or "my" money in there, because a - it's all been given to others, and b - Congress can pencil-whip "your" and "my" into nothingness.
I don't see a way out of this without partially reneging on the "obligation" to pay contributors - which is going to happen anyway, either via a percentage cut as mandated by insolvency or by inflating the dollar to effect the same thing.
The only way out, IMO, is a decades-long transition to individual accounts, roughly along the lines of what Chile and Sweden did. There is absolutely no political will to do so, nor will there be unless people en masse accept that the "their money" narrative is a fantasy. Which they won't, because as we saw with the Tea Party, even on the Right taxation is bad but SS is sacrosanct.
A bust-up is coming, and there'll be money printing to offset the massive caterwauls, and we'll all be ****ed by it.
I have an issue with only one thing you've said here. And it is this: "Meanwhile, most people are pretty smart." There are two options for society when it comes to those who for any of a number of reasons end up not caring for themselves: ignore them and let them suffer and die; or support them in some semblance of comfort until the inevitability of their natural death. You can call it social security or you can call it welfare or you can give it any other name you choose. But there you have it. Period.
Since I believe in individual responsibility, I think the former of your two options is the correct one. Religious organizations, charities, and *family* can take on the burden (if they care to) of supporting those who can't fend for themselves, but it's not government's job. That may sound cold, but it is true.
About the only thing I'd be OK with re (federal) government assistance is disaster relief. It could be looked at as a catastrophic insurance policy. State and local governments? That's a separate debate, and one that'd be part of a federalist view of things. Their inability to print money is a check against excess, as is the ability of individuals to leave.
Unwinding the knot of welfare programs would be a multigenerational endeavor, since their growth has been multigenerational. There'd have to be time allowed for non-government structures to emerge and grow in conjunction with that unwinding. Such would require a massive commitment from both politicians and the public, and the decades of telling people "your status is never your fault" and "the wealthy owe you because they got wealthy off your back" means that such unwinding isn't happening in my lifetime - nor perhaps even starting.
I agree - it will be a multi-generational effort, as will unwinding the socialist education so many have received via government indoctrination camps (public school). Where I disagree is disaster relief - that is the point, again, of insurance (private) and charity (private - whether religious or secular). The story "Not Yours to Give" is a great read on this subject: https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/ .
Remedies must be incremental. If we could limit federal government aid to disaster relief (and even then, do it better), we'd have moved 90% or more of the way to unwinding the welfare state without offering up meatballs for opponents to hit out of the park. Get there and THEN have the conversation about privatizing disaster relief as well.
The Royal We have been ignoring the portent of Herb Stein's law for decades - for which I coined the term "Jeff's Corollary to Herb Stein's Law" - something that is mathematically unsustainable in the Future is broken Right Now. But to declare such is condemned by Democrats as "scaring Seniors", who say your entire column is just "a lie". So the zombie staggers on, not knowing it's already dead.
Regardless, my wife and I have two years before we can draw benefits - and we will draw benefits at the earliest possible moment, for all the reasons you cited - we made a Car Payment a Month for 40 years into The System when we couldn't afford an actual car payment...this would be worth 7 figures if it had been invested in a conservative market based portfolio. We'll get a fraction of that back, but I'll take it as "better than nothing".
Just a couple of points here. As you rightly noted, SS is a government-run Ponzi scheme. It got worse when Congress voted to be able to raids SS funds to pay for other things, which leads to the next point. A big part of the reason for SS' insolvency is paying people who never paid in. How many illegal immigrants are receiving SS payments just because? These never paid into the system and thus should never be paid from it; yet, here we are. Lastly, I do have a small problem with your phase-out plan. I believe those who have paid in, should they choose to drop out, receive back all they paid in. After all, someone like myself who has paid in for decades and is within a decade of the age when government says they will begin paying me back should not be told, "stay on or bend over." That is simply assenting to the government's theft. I never consented to be robbed, yet I've tolerated it, as everyone else does. Unfortunately, unless you are self-employed and willing to deal with the armed jack-boots coming to your door, you have little choice. I don't think such people should be robbed of all they paid in.
You are correct that social security never should have been instituted to begin with - it is not the government's place to force anyone to save for retirement (and as with all funds government gets their hands on, we all know it would be mismanaged from the start). Those who were already forced to pay on shouldn't be punished. Let the government relinquish the money they give to all their pet corporations - the Met, Planned Parenthood, pharmaceutical firms, FEMA, and anyone else (that's all theft also; they have no constitutional authority for such charity) - pay everyone out in full and end the program altogether.
I'm far more pessimistic about salvaging individuals' "contributions."
Fact is, SS is just a tax that supports a social welfare system. There is no "your" or "my" money in there, because a - it's all been given to others, and b - Congress can pencil-whip "your" and "my" into nothingness.
I don't see a way out of this without partially reneging on the "obligation" to pay contributors - which is going to happen anyway, either via a percentage cut as mandated by insolvency or by inflating the dollar to effect the same thing.
The only way out, IMO, is a decades-long transition to individual accounts, roughly along the lines of what Chile and Sweden did. There is absolutely no political will to do so, nor will there be unless people en masse accept that the "their money" narrative is a fantasy. Which they won't, because as we saw with the Tea Party, even on the Right taxation is bad but SS is sacrosanct.
A bust-up is coming, and there'll be money printing to offset the massive caterwauls, and we'll all be ****ed by it.
Don't mistake my desire to be paid back for optimism that it will actually happen. I trust the government for/with nothing.
I have an issue with only one thing you've said here. And it is this: "Meanwhile, most people are pretty smart." There are two options for society when it comes to those who for any of a number of reasons end up not caring for themselves: ignore them and let them suffer and die; or support them in some semblance of comfort until the inevitability of their natural death. You can call it social security or you can call it welfare or you can give it any other name you choose. But there you have it. Period.
Since I believe in individual responsibility, I think the former of your two options is the correct one. Religious organizations, charities, and *family* can take on the burden (if they care to) of supporting those who can't fend for themselves, but it's not government's job. That may sound cold, but it is true.
About the only thing I'd be OK with re (federal) government assistance is disaster relief. It could be looked at as a catastrophic insurance policy. State and local governments? That's a separate debate, and one that'd be part of a federalist view of things. Their inability to print money is a check against excess, as is the ability of individuals to leave.
Unwinding the knot of welfare programs would be a multigenerational endeavor, since their growth has been multigenerational. There'd have to be time allowed for non-government structures to emerge and grow in conjunction with that unwinding. Such would require a massive commitment from both politicians and the public, and the decades of telling people "your status is never your fault" and "the wealthy owe you because they got wealthy off your back" means that such unwinding isn't happening in my lifetime - nor perhaps even starting.
I agree - it will be a multi-generational effort, as will unwinding the socialist education so many have received via government indoctrination camps (public school). Where I disagree is disaster relief - that is the point, again, of insurance (private) and charity (private - whether religious or secular). The story "Not Yours to Give" is a great read on this subject: https://fee.org/resources/not-your-to-give/ .
Remedies must be incremental. If we could limit federal government aid to disaster relief (and even then, do it better), we'd have moved 90% or more of the way to unwinding the welfare state without offering up meatballs for opponents to hit out of the park. Get there and THEN have the conversation about privatizing disaster relief as well.
The Royal We have been ignoring the portent of Herb Stein's law for decades - for which I coined the term "Jeff's Corollary to Herb Stein's Law" - something that is mathematically unsustainable in the Future is broken Right Now. But to declare such is condemned by Democrats as "scaring Seniors", who say your entire column is just "a lie". So the zombie staggers on, not knowing it's already dead.
Regardless, my wife and I have two years before we can draw benefits - and we will draw benefits at the earliest possible moment, for all the reasons you cited - we made a Car Payment a Month for 40 years into The System when we couldn't afford an actual car payment...this would be worth 7 figures if it had been invested in a conservative market based portfolio. We'll get a fraction of that back, but I'll take it as "better than nothing".