Single Status Update
Greg Gutfeld, of Fox News, asked on air if Social Security is "socialist".
My heart winced so hard, I was without pulse for a minute.
How do you have a job as a newscaster (or whatever) when you have to ask such inane questions?
- Show previous comments 2 more
No journalist is perfect, especially when at least half of your job is to speculate, as is the case with Greg Gutfield. Regardless of what he says or whether I agree with it or not, I usually find Greg to be hilarious.
Social Security is welfare, which is a large aspect of socialism. Does that make it a socialist policy? Honestly, I feel like that's a political grey-area. I'm not sure myself, because both "yes" and "no" are valid responses with good supporting arguments & evidence. What about an economic perspective on the issue? I'd say it's economically socialist, but I'd also ask @CUDAcores89 because he's more knowledgeable.
Regardless of what you think of social security: there are two things that are facts about it:
1. When you me, and every young person on this forum has our turn to retire, we will only be receiving 80 cents on the dollar back that we pay into social security after adjusted for inflation. Why is this? Well this brings me to my next point.
2. Social security is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. The money you pay into social security isnt being put into some sort of "trust fund" where it will be given back to you when you turn 65. The money is going right back out to pay for retirees TODAY.
Now lets circle back to part one, why you will only receive 80 cents on the dollar. Its because when social security started, the first generation (the silent generation) paid barely anything into it but got back thousands in benifets. The next generation (baby boomers) paid back the prevoius generations deficit due to the large population boom and were able to mostly recieve what they paid in right back. The in the 1980s something changed. People werent having as many babies to replace the old generation meaning social security is at risk of going bankrupt. So who is going to come to pick up the tab for the deficit? Thats right, millenials and gen Z. THAT is why we will only get back 80 cents on the dollar. Because we have to pay for the people who came before us because the government mafia stole our labor through a nice sounding program.
I dont care if you are socialist, capitalist or what. It is a fact of life that when we retire, our social security benifets will be cut 20%, meaning we will be the ones to come in and make up for the deficit meaning we get back LESS than we paid in. Remember, we are the generation who is also currently crushed with student loan debt.
By the year 2024, the US will spend more
on interest payments to service our debt than we currently spend on millitary paying back our government debt. Who will be expected to sholder that debt? Our generation of course. I didnt consent to taking on this debt. This debt is outright theft because the prevoius generation has effectively stolen the future generations productivity.
Back to social security. Believe it or not yes, I do believe in the premise of social security. but only because people are idiots who dont save. Because thrse people do not save, we are going to force you to save for retirement. Okay thats fine because I was already doing that.
What I DO NOT like about the implimentation in the US is that it is government managed meaning your money is invested in treasury bonds. The assets held in social security is literally a giant government IOU. I vastly prefer the way canada (of all places) manages their social security.
Instead of social security money going into a giant trust fund, it goes into the hands of a private corporation who invests all the money in the stock market. This provides far better returns than treasury bonds (0.3% real return vs 7% real return), and also prevents the fund from ever going bankrupt because it is managed by a private firm. If the stock market goes down, your benifets are cut. If the stock market goes up, the benifets increase.
In an ideal world what I would really allow people to do is manage their social security themselves. Yes the government is going to tax me and force me to save, but I am allowed to keep the money in a tax deferred retirement account where I get to choose my own mix of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds myself. This way the government van never borrow or steal my money since it is under my control.
The privatization of social security was at one point proposed by George Bush. But then the 2008 housing bubble burst and suddenly everyone said it was a bad idea even though the stock market recovered a few years later.
TL:DR: yes I begrudgingly agree with the idea of social security as a forced savings. But beyond this I should have the right to decide what I will and will not do with my social security money so the government cant steal it from me.
Social Security desperately needs reform. I think the money taken should either be put into mutual funds or stocks, or a CD-type of investment plan. The amount you put in, plus the interest, should be the amount you receive as soon as you turn 65, or later by choice, in monthly payment over no more than 5 years.
Most investments aren't protected by the FDIC and bankruptcy for the investment company means you lose all of it. Unless you're saying it should be a government-run investment firm.
The privatization of social programs, like mortgages, student loans, and [another that I can't get out of my mouth at the moment] usually end up getting worse before they crash and need a bailout. It's just not a good idea since it saves the company doing creating the issues, but doesn't help those consumers who were affected previously.