Subverting Social Security

Why fight on the hill you are willing to die on when you could fight on the hill your enemy is willing to die on

One of the worst— and presumably intentional— effects of Social Security has been to dramatically reduce multi-generational households. The true “social contract” is parents raise kids, kids take care of elderly parents later. This is now broken, although sheer necessity may change things soon.

@N0RINCO @NEETzscheIDDQD When you see how much your 401k is worth you see what you OWN You don’t OWN future benefits, unless you believe the government is omnipotently powerful and the right to property isn’t a valid concept.

@NEETzscheIDDQD So, if I put $150 dollars a week from my paycheck into a 401k, and that 401k pays me when I retire, is that welfare or an earned benefit?

Social Security is *LITERALLY* welfare. It's wealth transfer from young to old. The Social Security Act *CALLS* it welfare. Baker tries to argue that it's "not welfare" because it's "earned," but it's *TAXED AS UNEARNED* income. It's welfare, both anthropologically and legally.

@N0RINCO @NEETzscheIDDQD @koto418876 Yes. It’s money confiscated from the paychecks of other people. Government blood money.

@NEETzscheIDDQD @SubvertingSS @koto418876 So, let's say I contribute the max for 40 years, $184,500 a year. How many millions is that? I'll die before they give me 1/10th of my money back. But I didn't pay for it? It's welfare?

Social Security is *LITERALLY* welfare. "Welfare" is *LITERALLY* in the formal name of the act. It's welfare both in an anthropological and a legal sense. Anybody who disagrees is *JUST WRONG*

Think of it this way… In the alternative universe where Social Security never existed, you’d have a diverse population saving/spending at different rates and at different times in their lives. Among them would be people who spend 100% of what they earn and have no savings. This could include some 30-year-old just-married who spent down their meager savings on a house down payment. When you introduce Social Security taxes into that couple’s life, they don’t experience the loss of that income as less savings, they experience it as a decline in their standard of living. Millions of young families are experiencing that decline all over the country, RIGHT NOW. Even though it’s clear that The Entitlement State is directly to blame for their decreased standard of living, if you were to poll them and ask them why they can’t afford a better life, Entitlements will never make anyone’s list. Because they think of it as an investment. And offering “investment” as the natural alternative to paying Social Security taxes AFFIRMS that belief. And so they look elsewhere to blame…immigrants…billionaires….

@SubvertingSS @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD ....why wouldn't it be? As opposed to what, spending it on hoookers and blow?

@N0RINCO @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD That’s quite fair. I think the stigma of the term works well rhetorically, but ultimately you’re probably right.

@SubvertingSS @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD That's a valid argument, but unrelated to the point I was making. I'm not defending SS, I think it's flawed. But I don't think it's welfare...

@N0RINCO @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD Why do you imply that investment is the natural alternative to paying Social Security taxes?

@SubvertingSS @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD Instead of having $184,500 taken from your wages per year for SS you should keep your money and invest it elsewhere, if you choose to do so.

@N0RINCO @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD Social Security isn’t an investment, so why say you should be free to “invest” it elsewhere?

@SubvertingSS @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD That's a loose use of welfare. Im not a fan of the SS system, I think people should be free to invest elsewhere. But I don't think an earned benefit should be conflated with welfare

@N0RINCO @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD Just because the government SAYS it will deliver you future benefits doesn’t mean it has any right to make such promises.

You put money into it with the understanding it is going directly to current recipients. You also understand the government is promising to levy taxes on unborn Americans and deliver to you their future earnings. That isn’t a Ponzi scheme where the participant is an unsuspecting victim. THEY KNEW IT ALL ALONG They agreed to be welfare recipients.

@N0RINCO @koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD Don’t be the person who quibbles over dictionary definitions to avoid the truth of the meaningful context.

@koto418876 @NEETzscheIDDQD But not means tested. The source of the payment doesn't negate SS being an earned benefit. Not welfare...

@ABarrnette2748 @MidAtlanticMM The purpose of a system is what it does.

@MidAtlanticMM @SubvertingSS Social Security was only ever poverty insurance. It‘s sole purpose is to make sure that that small fraction of people who never planned for retirement aren’t sleeping on the street & starving. It was never meant to supplement other income so that seniors can have cable tv.

The Boomers are 20% of the overall population and pay 35-45% of all taxes. The idea that Millennials and Zoomers are subsidizing them is comically ignorant.

@dmesg @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice You aren’t

@SubvertingSS @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice You're so close to getting it

You know what would have solved a lot of issues? If social security had been invested in the market so everyone got 10x the amount each month. But no one wants actual solutions.

@dmesg @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice 6 trillion that DOESNT EVEN EXIST IN OUR CURRENT SITUATION

@SubvertingSS @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice Nope Go learn what happens when a cohort cashes 6 trillion out of a market at once. Stop embarrassing yourself

@dmesg @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice If past Social Security contributions had been given to private capital rather than consumed by past retirees there would be significantly more wealth today. Economic growth is predicated on investment. Social Security reduces investment.

@SubvertingSS @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice Sorry dude. Study accounting some time if the actuarial problem isn't obvious to you.

@dmesg @JefferyCMay @chicfryrice In the case of Social Security our money is seized from our paychecks against our will with no legitimate recompense. We become poorer. In the case of investment we voluntarily buy assets accumulated by retirees in a mutually beneficial exchange. We do not become poorer.

@JefferyCMay @chicfryrice Sorry dude, it's the *exact* same actuarial problem social security faces now. One way or another currently-working people have to give 6 trillion dollars to retirees over the next 20 years. Whether that's via a social transfer or equities purchases doesn't really matter.

@MidAtlanticMM @grok What % of tax expenditures are spent on them?

@SubvertingSS @grok You claimed that facts are satire. The Boomers are paying twice the tax burden of their representation in the population. In order words, you're the free loader.

@MidAtlanticMM @grok What is that meant to prove?

@SubvertingSS @grok, what percentage of the overall US population are Baby Boomers and what percentage of the overall tax burden do they pay?

@PatrickHeizer Indexing SS to inflation is incredibly nefarious. Instead of guaranteeing retirees a certain amount of money it guarantees them a certain amount of consumption **regardless of the amount of goods/services in the economy available to consume**

Not only are Social Security payments indexed to inflation, but there is a floor of 0.0% on COLA adjustments. Meaning if there is deflation, then seniors get real increases to their Social Security! Indexed to the upside, protection on downside.