Five Reasons Why Cutting Social Security Would Be Irrational

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Even for Congress. They, and others who apparently don't study the facts, believe that Social Security is a government handout. But 'entitlement' means that people who have paid into a program all their lives are entitled to a reasonable return on their investment. A better definition, as pointed out by Mark Karlin at Truthout, is a "mandated retirement savings plan."

Cutting this popular and well-run and
life-sustaining program would be irrational. There are many reasons for this.

1. Americans Have Paid For It Throughout Their Working Lives

As of 2010, according to the Urban Institute, the average two-earner couple making average wages throughout their lifetimes receive less in Social Security benefits than they paid in. Same for single males. Same by now for single females. One-earner couples get back more than they paid in.

2. It's a Small Benefit, But Most Seniors Depend On It

The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year, but most of our seniors rely on this for the majority of their income. Even the second richest quartile of Americans depends on Social Security for over half of its retirement income.

3. It's Been Well-Run for Over Half a Century

The poverty rate has decreased dramatically over the past 50 years, in large part because of the benefits of the Social Security program.

Social Security is running on a surplus of $2.6 trillion, it's funded until 2037, it cannot run out of money, it cannot contribute to the deficit, it has lower administrative costs than private sector 401k retirement plans, and it's wildly popular.

On top of all this, a report by the AARP Public Policy Institute found that Social Security stimulates the economy, adding more than $1 trillion to the U.S. economy each year as recipients spend their benefits on goods and services.

Dean Baker calls Social Security "perhaps the greatest success story of any program in US history."

4. The Free-Market Alternative Doesn't Work

The free-market alternative is everybody for themselves. That's fine for people with good jobs and retirement plans. But stunningly, the number of private sector workers covered by a pension with a guaranteed payout has dropped from 60 percent to 10 percent in a little over thirty years.

Americans are going into debt faster than they're saving for retirement, and those able to put something aside often make wrong choices with their money.

Financial experts, who generally speak for the people with enough money to hire a financial expert, tell us to have $200,000 to $300,000 in personal retirement savings. Most Americans have about a tenth of that, less than $25,000.

5. Redistribution Has Moved Retirement Money from the Middle Class to the Rich

Tax Expenditures -- subsidies from special deductions, exemptions, exclusions, credits, capital gains, and loopholes that move tax money to the richest taxpayers -- are estimated to be worth up to 8% of the GDP, or about $1.2 trillion.

That alone is more than enough to pay for Social Security ($883 billion).

Because of this misdirected revenue, government has been forced to borrow from Social Security to fund its programs. Most notably, George W. Bush took our retirement money to pay for his two wars and his tax cuts for the rich.

This last reason, more than any of the others, reveals the overwhelming unfairness of cutting Social Security. In effect, the middle class is being told to replenish its own savings account after those savings were passed along to the military and the super-rich.


By PAUL BUCHHEIT

36684d1316799630-funny-political-cartoons-memes-quote-eisenhower-social-security-jpg.jpg


cartoon%20social%20security%20gop%20privitization.jpg


a-cartoon-sign-ss-taxes.jpg
 
ken, when you promote increasing or removing the S.S. tax cap do you want the money raised from those additional taxes to go to those who paid it (at their retirement) or should their benefits remain at current levels and the money used for those with lower incomes?
 
I have never heard rational people claim that SS is an entitlement just as I have never seen rational people suggest that SS be ended.

SS IS the biggest ponzi scheme ever invented by man. Imagine if a private company started offering you such a retirement program. A program where upon the death of the payee, the payor is no longer obligated, AND, any amounts paid the month the payee died must also be sent back to the payor. A plan where the administrator of the plan can use that money to finance deficit spending knowing that they can also change the rules at anytime and raise the retirement age. A plan where the payor is only obligated upon the death of the payee to disburse a paltry $250 in death benefits. The government would go after that company and prosecute them for committing fraud.

The arguments I have heard suggest that this Ponzi scheme that is used to finance Government deficits be a real savings plans that would actually benefit retirees instead of offer a false promise of security.

I don't who or what the thread author is talking about; but it isn't reality.
 
I find it odd that all the people who complain about gutting SS for those who rely on it, forget that NO ONE has ever suggested changing social security for those already near retirement, but have only suggested making changes for those young enough to adapt to the changes over their working lives......
 
I love the part how the government spends my Social Security contributions and those made by my employer in my name....on whatever they want to. And replace my money with an IOU treasury note.

Then they come back to me, not as an SS client this time, but as a taxpayer.... and take my money to pay off the note in my SS account.

Over and over, year after year...I would have done much better with a diversified 401K. In fact, I have done better with a diversified 401K. It would be even grander if my SS contributions, and the matching contributions made all those years by my employer in my name, were part of it.
 
I love the part how the government spends my Social Security contributions and those made by my employer in my name....on whatever they want to. And replace my money with an IOU treasury note.

Then they come back to me, not as an SS client this time, but as a taxpayer.... and take my money to pay off the note in my SS account.

Over and over, year after year...I would have done much better with a diversified 401K. In fact, I have done better with a diversified 401K. It would be even grander if my SS contributions, and the matching contributions made all those years by my employer in my name, were part of it.
It's called payola dipstick, get over it
 
Social Security is running on a surplus of $2.6 trillion, it's funded until 2037, it cannot run out of money, it cannot contribute to the deficit

I also wonder why they refuse to admit that this "surplus" will only ever exist if the federal government collects enough income taxes to pay the IOUs it owes the SS fund......the "contribution to the deficit" does not come from the SS fund, it comes from scraping together enough money to pay what we've taken from the SS fund......
 
Back
Top