Why do we even HAVE Social Security?

Question

SocSec is supposed to be a trust fund that you pay into, and get back at retirement. But the contributions cap at a certain income level, it's paid out to rich people who don't need it, and the payouts have no correlation to the cash put in.
Why don't we demand that the goverment stop taking the special SocSec tax from our income, and let US decide what to do with our money? Because the people who are investing and saving DESPITE the SocSec tax will investf and save just that much more, and the people who AREN'T saving and investing, and are stupidly counting on SocSec as their retirement, will qualify for govt poverty programs and will get paid that way.

And don't give me that crap about "it's a promise we made to our seniors." It's a govt program, plain and simple. My govt promised me it wouldn't have sex with interns and then commit perjury about it, and also promised me it wouldn't go to war anymore unless it intended to fight and win, so govt promises mean squat.

I pointed out that the people who DON'T save would qualify for other programs, and the people who DO save don't NEED SocSec.
and screw AARP.

Then why don't we make the payout of SocSec NEED based, rather than an entitlement?
And it's only mandatory because it's defined as mandatory. Redefine it, and it's not mandatory. Duh!

Answer 1

Social Security is for the congress to raid every election season for their pork projects. I also had these questions years ago and have discovered, in dealing with the , that once this money is deducted from our pay checks it is no longer ours. The employees of the Social Security office treat this as THEIR money, just call them and see for yourself!

Answer 2

Because most of you wouldn't have any money when it came time to retire, unless your company gives you a retirement! And many are stealing peoples retirement funds, that they pay into as well! Or the company goes bankrupt leaving everyone stranded, while they start a new company with no retirees

The stock market is a loser for those who can't afford to lose what they invest and there is no provision for those who do lose it all, even if they had it saved at some point.

There is nothing wrong with Social Security except that the government steals all the money WE put into the trust fund to give to you rich people. Then they forget to pay it back!

That trust fund would be very solvent if it weren't for you thieves!

So it is a government program! None in the private sector has ever done any better!

You just don't want to pay into social security now that it is your turn!

Ther irony is that social security creates a lot of jobs from housing to anything a person receiving it has to pay, like a slum lord!

Answer 3

Leaving aside the rhetoric, you do ask a valid question. Here's some points to think about:
1) Social security is not just "old'age pensions"--it's an insurance program--difference is, its mandatory.
2) The basic reason we have it goes back to the history of the early 20th century. The suggestions you make were once the rule--and bottom line is it doesn't work. There's a lot of good historical studies out there--from conservative to liberal. One of the earliest--and best (and pretty much a centrist perspective) is Leiby, James "A History of Social Welfare and Social Work in the United States.
3) If you think carefully about the logic of what you suggest, the "irresponsible" people will, given control of that money they now pay--will spend it--and at retirement the entire burden of their care will fall on the welfare system. As it is, theypay into the system just like everyone else. So your approach would end up costing taxpayers MORE, not less.

I'll agree that the system needs drastic overhauling (and both parties have sat on their hands for years instead of facing the problem). But simply dumping social security isn't a viable answer.

Answer 4

The unfortunate truth is that people aren't perfect; not everyone plans well for retirement. It may be paternalistic, but it helps people out.

It covers a few other things - disability, support of a surviving spouse, among others.

Yes, everyone gets it, people like Warren Buffett, who certainly doesn't need it. However, it does correlate to what you put in. There are three water marks - the first bit gets 85% of what you put in, then 55%, then 15% - so that the dollars near the cap (90K these days) only increases payout by 15 cents on the dollar. It's progressive.

From my perspective, I think its a good idea to have some sort of income for people, because sometimes bad things just happen.

Answer 5

I am a Social Security recipient. But, I am not in favor of the program. Guaranteed the federal government will screw up anything the government gets involved in. SS is Socialism and Socialism always fails.
I had a relative who collected Social Security disability benefits for over 50 years before he died. Before that he only worked and paid into SS for five years. I never thought that was fair.
Keep working and keep paying taxes so I can collect my SS benefits. I am saving as much as I can. When the system crashes, I will be prepared. You should do the same.

Answer 6

Because, the average American saves -0.05% of the earnings. So, basically, the average American is too stupid to handle their retirement money. SocSec. does a lot, I am against socialism but this specific program did do wonders to end elderly poverty.

"My govt promised me it wouldn't have sex with interns and then commit perjury about it, and also promised me it wouldn't go to war anymore unless it intended to fight and win, so govt promises mean squat."

Your government never promised you that.

Answer 7

Social Security is a pyramid scam, meant to buy AARP votes for socialist democratt politicians. Thank you Mr Roosevelt. The choice we are facing is whether we want to bankrupt our children with outrageous tax rates to fund our retirement, or give up an entitlement that was never meant as everyone's pension plan to fund retirement cruises and motor homes. It is going to require confiscatory taxes on the soon-to-be-working generation (our kids). how can one worker fund two geezers for 30 more years of life after retirement?

Answer 8

Give me a break! Obviously you don't have to live on a fixed income and pay for expensive drugs that could be cheaper. a lot of people live on low incomes during their workign lives. imagine you make $25000 a year for 40 years of working, can you save even half of your income to pay for yourself for the 20 plus years after retirement to fund yourself for a meager $12500? let's assume you invest it yourself in the market, a few years ago people saw their 401ks shrink by a third when we had a recession. not everyone is a genius investor or has the $ to invest in a meaningful way. how heartless are you?

Answer 9

Here's the bottom line, it's protection against market failure, I can tell you're young by the tone of your complaint but 1929 (black Friday, stock market crash, kiss all your invested money good freaking bye)almost destroyed this country and it could happen again, we as a Nation decided through our elected officials that this contract with one and other was a GOOD thing to protect our interests as a whole should the markets fail and as a measure of protection for those who will NEVER earn enough to invest, either elect enough officials to change it ( which is NEVER gonna happen) or go live somewhere else

Answer 10

well... the simple fact is... most businesses don't pay most people enough to save any money and live in anything besides a trailor...

the median income is like $24,000... so that's AT LEAST 50 percent of the population that CLEARLY won't be able to save on their own... 50 PERCENT (but really even more in reality)... that's well beyond the realm of welfare and these programs... and that's why it was created in the first place...

and old people vote... young people don't... for the most part... and guess what most old people want?