He puts it so well (some nsfw language).
Here's my disclaimer (but watch the vid first):
First, crappier jobs and hardships on the poor and middle-class is largely caused by the regressive inflation tax, which economists have said is at least partially caused by big business' pull in Washington. As I think I've mentioned, reducing government would be a treatment for that. But, he also mentioned "taking away" Social Security...I don't think that's going to happen, but I think that's unfortunate.
Should we scrap Social Security? I wouldn't suggest shutting out older folks - anyone close to retirement age gets their well deserved income, which they have been paying for a half century or whatever. But, the payouts don't actually come from the trust fund. (That money is long spent.) It comes, surprisingly, directly from our pay checks (scroll down to "trust fund").
Right now this is a transfer of wealth from workers to the elderly. As a person who aspires to be elderly one day, I respectfully request the opportunity to use that portion of my earnings for retirement on my own terms without government intervention. Dissolving Social Security would mean a pay increase (12%) for every American worker. That's 12% of our income that is being redistributed by central planners. That would fund a 401k nicely. Now think about what this means for our retirement. It means earnings will be withdrawn from young people's paychecks to help fund our retirement. I'd rather have the means to take care of my own business and leave the youngsters alone - is that too much to ask?
With returns lower than a savings account, some say Social Security is the most blatant violation of the most basic human right - the right to screw up your own life without taking everyone else's down with you. It's often cited as the reason we installed government in the first place - for protection against such things. Is it really necessary to tax 100% of the people for the small percentage of folks who would encounter hardship during retirement?
I'm all for helping out old folks who need it, but is it really distributed based on need? Obviously not. It's "returned" to us after years of work. So even the multimillionaires are entitled to their share of Social Security income. That's not money for clothes and food (general welfare) - it's an extra round of golf or lobster instead of steak. If you are under 30, working overtime to make ends meet, and are not outraged that older folks are taking money out of your paycheck and using it for lobster, you probably should be. I don't care if it is only a tiny percentage, it's government stealing from Peter to pay Paul and I'm pretty sure the Constitution prohibits that. Of course, it's most troubling because it's not sustainable - what happens when a generation of workers reaches age 65 and there's nothing left. I think a case could be made that the best way to protect the general welfare is to give everyone equal opportunity to take care of themselves.
The effects of Social Security contribute to the problems Carlin is talking about. Because of Social Security we work 12 percent harder to earn a living wage. (A conservative estimate predicts it would take half as much in a private account to achieve the same retirement security). It makes it more difficult for parents to afford things like education, health insurance, beer, sushi, whatever. It's what a free society is all about.
So, when I drive by a crowded day care center playground should I take comfort in the fact that one day, with a bit of financial security, those youngsters could be working their finger to the bone so I can siphon a percentage of their paycheck for an extra round of golf or an order of lobster at my favorite chop house? Will they grow up to appreciate this from the next generation? Why did we take a temporary condition brought on by the Great Depression (caused by the government btw) and solve it with such a permanent scourge on the working population? How did this happen and how do we get out?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good points...and some bad ones. First, SS only takes 6.2% unless you add the Medicare portion of 1.45% for a grand total of 7.65%. Not peanuts by any means, unless you really really like peanuts and choose to spend an equal portion of your income on peanuts. Then it is peanuts...and a shit load at that. Anyway, there is no way to end SS without screwing anyone who has ever worked. The system was started poorly. It was never meant to be temporary. The way the system was created made it impossible to put an end to it fairly. The only way that could have been done would have been to start taxing wages for the pot but not pay anything out of it until the first people who put money in retired decades later. As far as the old rich guys using that moeny to buy lobster...they should. They earned it. How would you like to go to the bank and for 50 years you stash money in your savings account. The bank uses that money and pays you a very modest amount of interest. After 50 years of deposits you would like the bank to give you your money. They say they can't. Turns out that all of your money that they gave too other people in the form of loans is gone. Everyone with a loan filed bankruptcy and defaulted on their loans so now the bank doesn't have your money to give back to you. Oh, I forgot to mention that you had to make those deposits for 50 years. It was the law. You'd be pissed, right? Though you were smart and did very well for yourself, you invested wisely, and you certainly aren't starving...it's still your money. They were just supposed to be borrowing it from you, though forcefully.
For better or worse that's the system that's in place. I don't think privatizing the system (if one so chooses to make their own investments) is a totally bad idea. The problem is (and holy shit would the NeoCons scream bloody fuckin murder at this) what if the old folks made some bad choices? Or the people making the choices for the old folks made bad choices? Retirement fund is gone and who gets to financially support those old folks now? Uncle Sam. You and I. Then of course I don't need to explain the forces of inflation and the calue of the dollar or the cost of health care that all these old folks are gonna need to keep them alive and kicking. So that dollar that could have been invested now and made a small return over a long period never got invested. That same dollar 10, 20 or 30 years down the road ain't worth as much. So you need more of our dollars to support the old folks whose retirement fund disappeared. Your thoughts?
Yes, the government wants you to think it's only 6.2%, and if it were, I wouldn't see nearly as much of a problem with it.
6.2% is paid by the employee
6.2% is paid by the employer
The 6.2 paid by the employer is actually paid by the employee. Why? Because his/her salary is lower than it otherwise would be.
The cost of labor to an employer is based on the market (what are this person's skills worth?). The employer doesn't care if 20% of a salary goes to taxes and 80% to the employee - it couldn't matter.
Since wages are based on the market, if we eliminated the employer's portion, that 6.2% would have to go directly into higher paychecks.
The framers of Social Security knew this, but wanted to obfuscate it as much as possible so people would accept it. That is my primary concern - once government creates something too complicated for the public to understand, there's no way to eliminate it even if it causes great damage many years into the future.
If the true nature of any bill needs to be hidden, someone is up to no good, and someone suffers. (Usually not the person/entity drafting the bill). (gotta run - more later)
I agree that SS must deliver on it's promises - not doing so would be the crime of the millennium.
As you mentioned, it was deliberately installed to be permanent - for obvious reasons. But, the hand that feeds can be taken away - with a simple House and Senate majority vote.
How would you prosecute such a thing - well, you couldn't really.
So, how do we end the maldistribution of wealth perpetuated by this system and restore the individual rights and rule of law guaranteed by our Constitution? Good question.
Privatization? Absolutely not. Why? Because it would turn the government into a giant stockbroker oozing with favoritism. Would small and medium sized businesses be investment choices on the government's list of funds? Hell no - it would be an elite slice of stable fortune 500 companies. Do we really want to fatten the pocket books of huge corporations? Doesn't it seem like Microsoft has enough of an advantage without dumping 12% of every fry cook's paycheck into its corporate account?
Okay, 1.6 trillion has been spent slaying dragons around the world. SS payouts are about $450 billion a year. I say eliminate one to resolve the other. Continue to payout current beneficiaries, stall every worker's account contributions and replace it with a 12% salary bump. (The abbreviated worker's benefits would still be paid out in due course). And leave the dragons alone to frolic by the sea.
If some tax burden is required to end SS, I would gladly pay it - I am 100% for any tax that benefits society as a whole - which means giving everyone the most favorable conditions possible to take care of themselves.
On another level, if we can't trust individuals to take care of themselves, how can we expect individuals to take care of others?
Post a Comment