Impact on Chicago if we phase out social security (unemployed, rich)

[nana053]

Originally Posted by NealIRC

Well, I haven't stated whether or not I personally am for or against social security, only that his argument was a good 1 to use the other way around, regardless of whether I favor the situation.

As far as this goes, what really intrigues me is how, many upper-class Republicans are against social security as a whole, but they are quick to receive it.

My Dad knew a woman friend who was shocked at how a lot of rich North Shore Jews were quick to apply for their social security when turning 65, and would be on her case if their payment was late and such.

And so, people who are against social security as a whole, why not just not allow them to collect? Why not only give social security to Democrats, or, non-Republicans (so if you never voted, you're still a non-Republican and collect). Think about all the money would be saved and could be used if we just stopped giving out SS to Republicans and whoever else is against it.

But for as long as the system exists, Republicans do want it also.

Ah well.

Ayn Rand collected both social security and medicare. She did resist until she could no longer live without them, but she had railed against the whole system and ended up taking the benefits when she could no longer pay for herself.

When Ayn Rand Collected Social Security & Medicare, After Years of Opposing Benefit Programs | Open Culture

In the simplest terms, Rand discovered at the end of her life that she was only human and in need of help. Rather than starve or drop dead—as she would have let so many others do—she took the help on offer.

Of course, she argued that she was taking back the money confiscated from her when she paid into the system, but she would never argue that anyone else should get the benefit of money whether they paid into it or not.

[NealIRC]

GOOD POST nana053.

This should be a big embarassment to Objectivists.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by hlcc

The problem is the average typical American are simply awful at personal finance and retirement savings. The people have not only done a terrible job at saving enough for retirement, but also whatever little they managed to save they've done a terrible job at actually managing their investment.

Put the money back into the worker's pockets? I'm sure they'll end up spending a big chunk of that $$ instead of putting them into a properly managed investment plan.

Agree totally. Previous generations knew how to save and were taught ----> It's not all how much money you make? But how much you save". The Material generation of the 80s never ended. Spending and buying on credit still keep people in USERY for life.

I still believe that SS as a retirement income. Should be as a insurance policy. It will be there in a "As Needed basis"? If sucessful in life and attained a very comfortable level of wealth? It should be a " Badge of Honor and Patriotism" to NOT take SS.

Paying all kinds of insurances today I Will never collect from? (home, apt, catastrophic loss, auto, etc). Though auto and Medical are the most collected? Paying in a lifetime in good health and accident free? Means I paid PLENTY I won't collect. I surely will feel successful and lucky if I dont. 👌

I see NO reason successful financially secure people, who collected wealth in life? Should feel, it is owed no matter what? Having a attitude of " I WANT IT 'CAUSE I PAID INTO IT ". Again ----> it should be more a insurance of need and NOT collected. But some just never want to cash in their savings in retirement and basically their heirs reap the benefits.

I realise not all see it that way and want it as if a IRA to cash in. But I believe it should become more as a insurance policy as to keep it more solvent if it would work?

[chirack]

Originally Posted by NealIRC

And so, people who are against social security as a whole, why not just not allow them to collect? Why not only give social security to Democrats, or, non-Republicans (so if you never voted, you're still a non-Republican and collect). Think about all the money would be saved and could be used if we just stopped giving out SS to Republicans and whoever else is against it.

But for as long as the system exists, Republicans do want it also.

Ah well.

The Original Idea for SS was that it would be the prime source of income for retired Americans as well as handle widows and disabled. In the era before SS, being elderly was a major source of poverty(as well as being widowed or disabled).

Before SS people attempted to work until they couldn't. There were few private pensions for most workers and once you became too old to work you relied on your family to support you. Unless you have a lot of disposable income, it is difficult to save for retirement and even if you do the vagaries of how well your investments do and how long you will live can upend any retirement plan.

Anyway before SS you did some of the following:

1. If you owned an house rent it out to boarders to collect income.

2. If you had children(that you were on good terms with) became a burden on them as you needed them for support(imagine your in laws moving in because they could non longer support themselves).

3. If you were lucky and well off then maybe you had enough money to support yourself barring investment failure.

4. If none of the above apply to you, moved into the poor house(public and charity supported institutions that provided space and food). With the strong social safety net(SS, unemployment, food stamps and section 8) poor houses went out as a way to handle poverty.

5. Some states had old age pensions but they often were very small and had a lot of catches to them to qualify(like had to be destitute instead of merely need a little extra income to maintain your status in life--i.e. they raised my rent $50 a month and the pension no longer can cover it ).


With the modern world

1. With SS you might not need to bring in boarders and advancements in technology(gas stoves, washing machines, ect.) have reduced the need for someone to seek boarding over renting.

2. With SS, even if you are forced to move in with your children, you bring income and are not a total drain on the family's resources.

3. As originally set SS did not adjust to other income in order to gain some support among the more wealthy(i.e. no matter how rich or poor you got the same amount if you paided in the same amount...now you don't). There were caps, but it scaled. Now they can reduce the amount due to other income.

4. Poor houses back then were regarded as an inefficient method of taking care of poverty(they needed paid staff and people could darned well cook and clean for themselves if they could afford rent). They were also considered a shameful place to go. With SS and other forms of safety net a person can afford to stat independent for a very long time.

5. States dropped old age pensions and latter focused on Medicaid(and it's precursors) and the like. SS allowed other forms of charity to be used more efficiently .

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by chirack

The Original Idea for SS was that it would be the prime source of income for retired Americans as well as handle widows and disabled. In the era before SS, being elderly was a major source of poverty(as well as being widowed or disabled).

Before SS people attempted to work until they couldn't. There were few private pensions for most workers and once you became too old to work you relied on your family to support you. Unless you have a lot of disposable income, it is difficult to save for retirement and even if you do the vagaries of how well your investments do and how long you will live can upend any retirement plan.

Anyway before SS you did some of the following:

1. If you owned an house rent it out to boarders to collect income.

2. If you had children(that you were on good terms with) became a burden on them as you needed them for support(imagine your in laws moving in because they could non longer support themselves).

3. If you were lucky and well off then maybe you had enough money to support yourself barring investment failure.

4. If none of the above apply to you, moved into the poor house(public and charity supported institutions that provided space and food). With the strong social safety net(SS, unemployment, food stamps and section 8) poor houses went out as a way to handle poverty.

5. Some states had old age pensions but they often were very small and had a lot of catches to them to qualify(like had to be destitute instead of merely need a little extra income to maintain your status in life--i.e. they raised my rent $50 a month and the pension no longer can cover it ).

So why not set a ceiling for SS?

It's like that for welfare. That is set at $2,000. If you have more than $2,000 in your bank accounts, you can't accept welfare the month of. If next month you have less than $2k you can collect.

Ceiling for this can be something like $100,000 so therefore rich North Shore Jews and other upper-class Objectivists can't collect unless they below.

[Tominftl]

If the Republicans try to mess with social security that would be the last straw. Prepare for riots....

[chirack]

Originally Posted by NealIRC

So why not set a ceiling for SS?

It's like that for welfare. That is set at $2,000. If you have more than $2,000 in your bank accounts, you can't accept welfare the month of. If next month you have less than $2k you can collect.

Ceiling for this can be something like $100,000 so therefore rich North Shore Jews and other upper-class Objectivists can't collect unless they below.

Err not quite. SS isn't welfare. It is you have paid into the system and should get something out of it. It would erode support among the well off because instead of getting something out of SSA you get nothing.

SSA should not be viewed as welfare imho. If you don't want to collect simply don't file for it.

[NealIRC]

Originally Posted by chirack

Err not quite. SS isn't welfare. It is you have paid into the system and should get something out of it. It would erode support among the well off because instead of getting something out of SSA you get nothing.

SSA should not be viewed as welfare imho. If you don't want to collect simply don't file for it.

Right, no where have I said SS is welfare, I just used welfare as an example.

I've said welfare as an example of having a glass ceiling, why not with SS?

[chirack]

Originally Posted by NealIRC

Right, no where have I said SS is welfare, I just used welfare as an example.

I've said welfare as an example of having a glass ceiling, why not with SS?

As I mentioned earlier to keep as much support for the system as possible. I don't mind SS paying out to the well off nor do I think that taxes would be lowered any appreciable amount by putting in a glass ceiling. The idea of the glass ceiling is that society should not be helping out those who could help themselves and it takes more than old age to get things like SSI and TANF.

[ToriaT]

I like things the way they are now. Don't change them. I don't want SS abolished. I think if you paid into it you should get it regardless. I don't think its a badge of patriotism not to take it or it should be an insurance policy. I don't know anybody who got SS that wasn't very glad to start getting it. By the time people are eligible for SS they usually have something that impairs their working life, some health problem, or they have lost a job and never were able to find another one paying as much, have a sick spouse, etc. that makes it hard for them to keep working.