Opting out of Social Security

[jfreak53]

I get a lot of income from overseas, and as much I think I should be allowed to Opt-Out of Social Security and receive a return of all I have paid in, even if it's a rollover to a Roth IRA of my choice. It's my cash and I hate it that the Government gets to force me to invest in Social Security, I should have the choice.

Sign this petition, let's see if it works:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/allow-citizens-opt-out-social-security-taxes-and-return-them-all-money-paid-upon-opt-out/KLcN0850

[1713562231]

1713562231

[1713562231]

1713562231

[1713562231]

1713562231

[1713562231]

1713562231

[FirstAscent]

Why don't you just keep paying it so that those not as fortunate as you will have a little bit of something when they can no longer work?

Do you know the basic principle of insurance? Some people mistakenly believe it's so that over time, the amount of insurance premiums you pay will on average equal the amount you might need to cover that rare accident you have. But that's not right. It's so that the few (we don't know who they will be) will be able to deal with that $100,000 claim. It might be you one day.

When you're twenty, nobody knows where you'll be when you're 70. If you're wealthy, great. If not, then at least you'll have a little something from social security.

Do you know how to smooth your equity curve from investing? The method is called diversification. It might be diversification into different assets, or diversification of different investing strategies. The point is to smooth the equity curve, which reduces risk. Social security is a smoothing function, applied in aggregate, to the country's citizens' retirement income.

You may not know this (I suspect you don't), but if there were enough individuals like you who could opt out of social security, then there would probably be a lot of economic problems revolving around the older generation. Actually, I don't just suspect you don't know that. It's blatantly obvious from your post that you don't.

[TECSHARE]

Why don't you just keep paying it so that those not as fortunate as you will have a little bit of something when they can no longer work?

Do you know the basic principle of insurance? Some people mistakenly believe it's so that over time, the amount of insurance premiums you pay will on average equal the amount you might need to cover that rare accident you have. But that's not right. It's so that the few (we don't know who they will be) will be able to deal with that $100,000 claim. It might be you one day.

When you're twenty, nobody knows where you'll be when you're 70. If you're wealthy, great. If not, then at least you'll have a little something from social security.

Do you know how to smooth your equity curve from investing? The method is called diversification. It might be diversification into different assets, or diversification of different investing strategies. The point is to smooth the equity curve, which reduces risk. Social security is a smoothing function, applied in aggregate, to the country's citizens' retirement income.

You may not know this (I suspect you don't), but if there were enough individuals like you who could opt out of social security, then there would probably be a lot of economic problems revolving around the older generation. Actually, I don't just suspect you don't know that. It's blatantly obvious from your post that you don't.

You obviously don't have a clue about the US social security system. First of all it is already paying out more than is coming in since 2010. Second, by the time he retires THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT FOR ANYONE. Additionally they are already talking about taking not just public, but PRIVATE retirement pensions to help pay for "austerity measures". The US government uses social security money as if they own it. They use it to fund other government projects, and to feed their thief crony buddies retiree's money. He worked hard for his pay, he should get to keep every penny if he wants instead of paying it to some bloated bureaucracy infested by fascists and parasites.

[ribuck]

Did you know that the Amish are exempted from paying Social Security? The basis for this is that they look after their own, and the history of how they fought against having to pay Social Security is quite interesting.

The current law exempts any sect who conscientiously object to the principle of compulsory insurance, provided that sect has existed since December 31 1950. So I doubt the "Bitcoin Sect" will have much luck.

[Explodicle]

If anyone could opt out, everyone would. It's mandatory because we all know it's just  a Ponzi scheme.

GET BACK TO WORK, SLAVES!

[JusticeForYou]

If anyone could opt out, everyone would. It's mandatory because we all know it's just  a Ponzi scheme.

GET BACK TO WORK, SLAVES!

ah... The Amish do not contribute to Social Security, nor Obama Care, nor Mortgage Insurance, nor etc...

But they also don't partake of any benefits of Social Security.

[TECSHARE]

Believe it or not, anyone can opt out of social security. By the nature of the exemption the instructions have a religious lean, don't let that off put you, the info is solid. Before doing this make sure you understand the full ramifications of opting out.

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf

[ribuck]

Believe it or not, anyone can opt out of social security...

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf

By following those complex instructions anyone can opt out, however neither employers nor the government will recognise the opt-out. Good luck trying though.

From page 6 of that document:

Question: What has been the result(s) of those that have submitted a RESIGNATION to date?

Answer: We don't maintain statistics. It's too burdensome and we aren't staffed to do this. Furthermore, it's irrelevant ... It’s none of our business and is completely irrelevant to getting the job done. We’re not going to provide excuses to help you avoid doing what God’s Law requires ... If you are looking for excuses NOT to do the right thing, then you are on the wrong website and ought to return to your government cage on the federal plantation and be a good little slave. Furthermore ... no matter what we said, our Disclaimer says you can’t believe anything we say anyway, so why even ask questions like this?

Hahahah, at least their heart's in the right place with the "return to your cage" bit.

[Explodicle]

If anyone could opt out, everyone would. It's mandatory because we all know it's just  a Ponzi scheme.

GET BACK TO WORK, SLAVES!

ah... The Amish do not contribute to Social Security, nor Obama Care, nor Mortgage Insurance, nor etc...

But they also don't partake of any benefits of Social Security.

Correct, I saw that in ribuck's post. That's why I said "anyone", not "someone".

[Bees Brothers]

If anyone could opt out, everyone would. It's mandatory because we all know it's just  a Ponzi scheme.

GET BACK TO WORK, SLAVES!

Couldn't have said it better.

[bb113]

Why don't you just keep paying it so that those not as fortunate as you will have a little bit of something when they can no longer work?

Do you know the basic principle of insurance? Some people mistakenly believe it's so that over time, the amount of insurance premiums you pay will on average equal the amount you might need to cover that rare accident you have. But that's not right. It's so that the few (we don't know who they will be) will be able to deal with that $100,000 claim. It might be you one day.

When you're twenty, nobody knows where you'll be when you're 70. If you're wealthy, great. If not, then at least you'll have a little something from social security.

Do you know how to smooth your equity curve from investing? The method is called diversification. It might be diversification into different assets, or diversification of different investing strategies. The point is to smooth the equity curve, which reduces risk. Social security is a smoothing function, applied in aggregate, to the country's citizens' retirement income.

You may not know this (I suspect you don't), but if there were enough individuals like you who could opt out of social security, then there would probably be a lot of economic problems revolving around the older generation. Actually, I don't just suspect you don't know that. It's blatantly obvious from your post that you don't.

I wouldn't compare voluntary insurance with compulsory, they are two different beasts. Also, the reasons that people don't have any money to survive when they are 70 should be addressed. If this is due to poor decisions and failure to plan ahead...

There is also the way the government uses the money to play numbers games, etc. There are many problems with social security, I would like to opt out even if they keep what they have already taxed. I think many people feel this way.

[Littleshop]

The basic idea of SS is sound.  The two problems are that the money is not being kept in the trust fund.  It is being used as an interest free loan by the government, so basically it is not there.  The second problem is the payout needs to be reduced NOW but it is politically much easier not to.  So future generations are ripped off by the current one.  It is sad, because the reduction needed is actually doable.  Seniors would of course object to a 10% cut in current SS benefits, but with that the system would be sound (SS, not medicare/medicaid).

[JusticeForYou]

The basic idea of SS is sound.  The two problems are that the money is not being kept in the trust fund.  It is being used as an interest free loan by the government, so basically it is not there.  The second problem is the payout needs to be reduced NOW but it is politically much easier not to.  So future generations are ripped off by the current one.  It is sad, because the reduction needed is actually doable.  Seniors would of course object to a 10% cut in current SS benefits, but with that the system would be sound (SS, not medicare/medicaid).

As originally intended, yes. But it turned into one big Pyramid Scheme that requires each generation to produce more children and give those children more and more jobs at the same or higher rates of pay.

Now if you truly restricted it to Widows, Orphans, disabled etc... then there is plenty of money. SS is a hidden tax that the government borrows from. Well used to borrow from. They can't anymore.

It will have to be means tested for any shape of it to stay viable. People still believe the money they put in for 50 years was theirs. I blame the government for that illusion and not clarifying it. You will have 1 worker trying to support more than 2 people on SS very shortly. Can't be done.

Start with the wealthy, if they don't need it, they don't get it. And 'need' needs to be clearly quantified.

[Littleshop]

The basic idea of SS is sound.  The two problems are that the money is not being kept in the trust fund.  It is being used as an interest free loan by the government, so basically it is not there.  The second problem is the payout needs to be reduced NOW but it is politically much easier not to.  So future generations are ripped off by the current one.  It is sad, because the reduction needed is actually doable.  Seniors would of course object to a 10% cut in current SS benefits, but with that the system would be sound (SS, not medicare/medicaid).

It will have to be means tested for any shape of it to stay viable. People still believe the money they put in for 50 years was theirs. I blame the government for that illusion and not clarifying it. You will have 1 worker trying to support more than 2 people on SS very shortly. Can't be done.

I do not believe that is true.  Currently, SS is running a SURPLUS (not that the rest of the government is not stealing that money).  Even in 2033, SS should be able to pay out 77% of benefits.  If current benefits were cut NOW by 10%, the surplus would take us through the 'hump' created by the baby boomers.  After that wave passes, SS is again sustainable.  Short sighted politicians are doing what is best for them now in exchange for screwing up the future. 

[FirstAscent]

I wouldn't compare voluntary insurance with compulsory, they are two different beasts. Also, the reasons that people don't have any money to survive when they are 70 should be addressed. If this is due to poor decisions and failure to plan ahead...

You're missing the point. It's not about insurance being voluntary or not. It's about how premiums pay for claims. Many people mistakenly believe, with regard to insurance and social security, that the payments they make in are supposed to somehow equitably match what their claims should be over time. Neither program is designed to work like that.

The OP likely is one who believes that he should be exempt from the program, because perhaps his payments made into social security might not equal what he'd receive on the back end - exactly like a good driver who never has a claim might believe that his premium should be even lower.

[FirstAscent]

I do not believe that is true.  Currently, SS is running a SURPLUS (not that the rest of the government is not stealing that money).  Even in 2033, SS should be able to pay out 77% of benefits.  If current benefits were cut NOW by 10%, the surplus would take us through the 'hump' created by the baby boomers.  After that wave passes, SS is again sustainable.  Short sighted politicians are doing what is best for them now in exchange for screwing up the future. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2010/07/27/selling-the-big-lie-on-social-security/

[Littleshop]

I do not believe that is true.  Currently, SS is running a SURPLUS (not that the rest of the government is not stealing that money).  Even in 2033, SS should be able to pay out 77% of benefits.  If current benefits were cut NOW by 10%, the surplus would take us through the 'hump' created by the baby boomers.  After that wave passes, SS is again sustainable.  Short sighted politicians are doing what is best for them now in exchange for screwing up the future. 

http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-money/2010/07/27/selling-the-big-lie-on-social-security/

They are a bit more optimistic then others I have read, but generally agree with that is said there.  A small cut now would satisfy the tougher projections though.

[TECSHARE]

Believe it or not, anyone can opt out of social security...

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf

By following those complex instructions anyone can opt out, however neither employers nor the government will recognise the opt-out. Good luck trying though.

Actually once you complete the paperwork they are legally obligated to recognize it. Of course people will find it odd, but that doesn't change the law.

[drrussellshane]

Believe it or not, anyone can opt out of social security. By the nature of the exemption the instructions have a religious lean, don't let that off put you, the info is solid. Before doing this make sure you understand the full ramifications of opting out.

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf

I found that site a few years ago.... I find it pretty damn cool to see it referenced here.

Bitcoiners. Good people!

[Gabi]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

[Explodicle]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked.

If they aren't using those SS savings to buy alternative insurance and investment plans, don't they deserve to be fucked?

It's not like we [USA] actually HAVE a universal health care system. The government leaves people to die on the streets all the time, even those who faithfully paid taxes their whole lives. Not that private insurance companies are much more trustworthy, but at least let people pick the least bad of several bad options.

[jfreak53]

It's not the Gov's job to take care of you till you die, it's their job to step out of the way and let you responsibly live and plan for the your life   I wish they Gov. was smaller.  Your taxes are only supposed to pay for Gov. salaries, roads and such, not health care   Go ahead and flame me after this, I'm expecting it ha ha

[Hawker]

It's not the Gov's job to take care of you till you die, it's their job to step out of the way and let you responsibly live and plan for the your life   I wish they Gov. was smaller.  Your taxes are only supposed to pay for Gov. salaries, roads and such, not health care   Go ahead and flame me after this, I'm expecting it ha ha

No one will flame you.  Its a perfectly reasonable position.

I don't think you've provided enough arguments to convince a majority your position is correct but you won't be flamed.  Personally I think government should do what its been elected to do.  In the UK, that includes providing health care and social services free at the point of consumption. In the US, that seems to include providing social security but you know your system better than me.

[bb113]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

This is a weird argument. Do you realize that if you stopped paying for social security you would have more money to spend on other types of insurance and plans for the future? Basically you are just assuming that SS is the best possible deal. If that was the case then why does the government need to force people to participate?

[Hawker]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

This is a weird argument. Do you realize that if you stopped paying for social security you would have more money to spend on other types of insurance and plans for the future? Basically you are just assuming that SS is the best possible deal. If that was the case then why does the government need to force people to participate?

Humans live in a bubble of confidence where bad stuff only happens to other people.  Many just won't save and won't buy insurance.  They will spend that money on more immediate pleasures.  Unless those that do save and do buy insurance are prepared to allow their improvident compatriots to die in the streets, they have to either force them to join schemes like social security or they have to accept that stupid folk are entitled to freeload.

[JusticeForYou]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

This is a weird argument. Do you realize that if you stopped paying for social security you would have more money to spend on other types of insurance and plans for the future? Basically you are just assuming that SS is the best possible deal. If that was the case then why does the government need to force people to participate?

Humans live in a bubble of confidence where bad stuff only happens to other people.  Many just won't save and won't buy insurance.  They will spend that money on more immediate pleasures.  Unless those that do save and do buy insurance are prepared to allow their improvident compatriots to die in the streets, they have to either force them to join schemes like social security or they have to accept that stupid folk are entitled to freeload.

This is probably true. I'm a fan of Nature correcting bad behavior, to some this seems cruel but it probably the best solution. We don't need people to be forced to buy Insurance in fact this is a VERY bad idea to give governments. I'm not even a fan of semi forced insurance like car insurance. We did fine for a very long time without it being a mandate as other countries still do. e.g. What in the world does a Credit Rating have to with the cost of Car Insurance?  It is a scheme to charge those with good driving records but bad credit more money(poor people). Wealthy people could careless cause they can self-insure and by-pass all the requirements.

Basically, what I am saying is. Yes people do stupid things that affect their longterm abilities but let them suffer the consequences of those actions. That is the quickest way to stop them from doing stupid things.

You want to bring down the cost of health care to affordable rates? Well, make insurance companies pay the people and the people pay the doctors letting the insured keep and savings that they wish to save from the 'covered' amount allowed.

OR just get rid of insurance.

True 'Doctors' are like true 'Artists', they are not in the profession for money; they have a deep seeded need to help.

I mentioned the Amish in this thread before, they have a system of 'insurance' but it isn't insurance in the traditional sense. They seem to live healthy and have long lives. They pool their money and payout at providers that accept their self-funded card which by they way pays out almost immediately without all the hassle.

[film2240]

It's not the Gov's job to take care of you till you die, it's their job to step out of the way and let you responsibly live and plan for the your life  I wish they Gov. was smaller.  Your taxes are only supposed to pay for Gov. salaries, roads and such, not health care  Go ahead and flame me after this, I'm expecting it ha ha

No one will flame you.  Its a perfectly reasonable position.

I don't think you've provided enough arguments to convince a majority your position is correct but you won't be flamed.  Personally I think government should do what its been elected to do.  In the UK, that includes providing health care and social services free at the point of consumption. In the US, that seems to include providing social security but you know your system better than me.

In UK,a lot is expected from Govt and as you rightly say,this does include providing healthcare/social services free at the point of use.Taxes go to loads of stuff in UK.
1.Health care (called NHS in UK)
2.Social programs
3.Lots of regulators (Ofcom-TV/advertising,Ofwat-regulator of water companies,Ofgem-regulator of the energy companies,well too many to list here)
4.The Queen (how else does the Royal family get funded? Via our taxes of course)
5.Environmental programs (save the earth kind of thing,plus funding renewable energy projects)
6.NI (national Insurance-UK equivalent to your Social security,funds govt programs/your pension)
7.Roads (funded by road tax which is based on your cars emissions.Low emission cars are tax exempt.)
8.20% VAT applied to all goods/services sold in UK (It's much more for cigarettes and alcohol though.Sports nutrition products are currently tax exempt but not for long though)

Well there are too many things to list for what taxes in UK go to.If you stop paying NI,you'll be stopping funds to everything that depends on it (pension,NHS,social programs).

We should think about what we would do if we needed help from those programs,that we stop paying into.Being self reliant (or as close to it as you can) will mean you can stop paying certain taxes and still enjoy a high quality of life.

[Hawker]

...snip...

You want to bring down the cost of health care to affordable rates? Well, make insurance companies pay the people and the people pay the doctors letting the insured keep and savings that they wish to save from the 'covered' amount allowed.

OR just get rid of insurance.

...snip...

Americans don't seem to vote to leave people without insurance die outside hospitals so you have to work out how to deal with people who are not going to voluntarily buy insurance.

Your first idea won't work - sick people can't negotiate so in a system like the US one, you have companies with patent monopolies price gouging people who are afraid of dying.  You can't shop around for patented drugs so costs won't fall.  

Your second idea works.  In the UK, health care is paid by taxes.  Health results are better than the US and its costs slightly over half.

[Hawker]

It's not the Gov's job to take care of you till you die, it's their job to step out of the way and let you responsibly live and plan for the your life  I wish they Gov. was smaller.  Your taxes are only supposed to pay for Gov. salaries, roads and such, not health care  Go ahead and flame me after this, I'm expecting it ha ha

No one will flame you.  Its a perfectly reasonable position.

I don't think you've provided enough arguments to convince a majority your position is correct but you won't be flamed.  Personally I think government should do what its been elected to do.  In the UK, that includes providing health care and social services free at the point of consumption. In the US, that seems to include providing social security but you know your system better than me.

In UK,a lot is expected from Govt and as you rightly say,this does include providing healthcare/social services free at the point of use.Taxes go to loads of stuff in UK.
1.Health care (called NHS in UK)
2.Social programs
3.Lots of regulators (Ofcom-TV/advertising,Ofwat-regulator of water companies,Ofgem-regulator of the energy companies,well too many to list here)
4.The Queen (how else does the Royal family get funded? Via our taxes of course)
5.Environmental programs (save the earth kind of thing,plus funding renewable energy projects)
6.NI (national Insurance-UK equivalent to your Social security,funds govt programs/your pension)
7.Roads (funded by road tax which is based on your cars emissions.Low emission cars are tax exempt.)
8.20% VAT applied to all goods/services sold in UK (It's much more for cigarettes and alcohol though.Sports nutrition products are currently tax exempt but not for long though)

Well there are too many things to list for what taxes in UK go to.If you stop paying NI,you'll be stopping funds to everything that depends on it (pension,NHS,social programs).

We should think about what we would do if we needed help from those programs,that we stop paying into.Being self reliant (or as close to it as you can) will mean you can stop paying certain taxes and still enjoy a high quality of life.

As a Tory voter, I agree  There is a lot of stupid spending.  But the NHS, social programs, regulators and roads are needed and have to be paid for anyway.  Tax is as good a way as any.

The Queen baffles me.  One of the richest people in the world and she gets both an old age pension and a massive public subvention.

[bb113]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

This is a weird argument. Do you realize that if you stopped paying for social security you would have more money to spend on other types of insurance and plans for the future? Basically you are just assuming that SS is the best possible deal. If that was the case then why does the government need to force people to participate?

Humans live in a bubble of confidence where bad stuff only happens to other people.  Many just won't save and won't buy insurance.  They will spend that money on more immediate pleasures.  Unless those that do save and do buy insurance are prepared to allow their improvident compatriots to die in the streets, they have to either force them to join schemes like social security or they have to accept that stupid folk are entitled to freeload.

Yes, this is a much better pro-SS argument than Gabi's.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yes, this is a much better pro-SS argument than Gabi's.

You did shoot most of my other ones down in flames

[bb113]

I just think a logical argument is the first step. Then we have to look at the data to try to guess how things actually work out in reality, at this point we almost always discover the data is telling a story that is much more noisy and complex than what you hear on the news. For example:

Health results are better than the US and its costs slightly over half.

You are using average cost as the basis for that statement. The cost per citizen may not be normally distributed (in fact we know it is not) so the average may be meaningless. I think the best way may be to compare yearly costs for the top 10% of healthcare spenders between countries, then 10-20%, etc. Even better is you plot cost/year per percentile for each country and fit a curve (probably logistic) then compare the parameters (rate constants, etc) of the curve fit. Next step is to try to explain those parameters.

There is also the issue from that previous news story that some people may define the "cost" of procedures in countries with universal healthcare as the fee the patient pays and not include taxes payed. The quality of journalism and even much research is so low people really need to start analyzing the raw data for themselves.

[bb113]

I forgot my point. My point is that noone really cares if millionaires are spending tons of money on experimental end-of-life care. We should look at the data in a way that would tell us whether this was the source of the discrepancy in average cost.

[Hawker]

I forgot my point. My point is that noone really cares if millionaires are spending tons of money on experimental end-of-life care. We should look at the data in a way that would tell us whether this was the source of the discrepancy in average cost.

But we know the answer...if you give drug makers a patent monopoly on life saving drugs, patients have to pay more.  No matter what way the numbers are sliced up, it always comes back to people who are close to death and will pay anything for a few extra weeks of life.

The US is unique in allowing this strange combination of patent monopolies for the vendors and a "free market" for the sick who need the drugs.  Until that is fixed, the US will always have the most expensive system.

In economic terms, its like the US comnpetitive economy has to carry a huge burden of overpaid medical staff but its not a disaster as every economy has inefficiencies. 

But in terms of this thread, the choice is between
(a) freedom to skip SS but then accept that people who do it must die in the gutter if they are broke or else
(b) make them pay as they earn and then support them at the end of life.

[bb113]

I forgot my point. My point is that noone really cares if millionaires are spending tons of money on experimental end-of-life care. We should look at the data in a way that would tell us whether this was the source of the discrepancy in average cost.

But we know the answer...if you give drug makers a patent monopoly on life saving drugs, patients have to pay more.  No matter what way the numbers are sliced up, it always comes back to people who are close to death and will pay anything for a few extra weeks of life.

The US is unique in allowing this strange combination of patent monopolies for the vendors and a "free market" for the sick who need the drugs.  Until that is fixed, the US will always have the most expensive system.

In economic terms, its like the US comnpetitive economy has to carry a huge burden of overpaid medical staff but its not a disaster as every economy has inefficiencies.  

But in terms of this thread, the choice is between
(a) freedom to skip SS but then accept that people who do it must die in the gutter if they are broke or else
(b) make them pay as they earn and then support them at the end of life.

c) Have people bothered by the elderly dying in gutters (most people) pay taxes for or pay/donate to organizations that will offer a service that takes care of this problem.

[Hawker]

I forgot my point. My point is that noone really cares if millionaires are spending tons of money on experimental end-of-life care. We should look at the data in a way that would tell us whether this was the source of the discrepancy in average cost.

But we know the answer...if you give drug makers a patent monopoly on life saving drugs, patients have to pay more.  No matter what way the numbers are sliced up, it always comes back to people who are close to death and will pay anything for a few extra weeks of life.

The US is unique in allowing this strange combination of patent monopolies for the vendors and a "free market" for the sick who need the drugs.  Until that is fixed, the US will always have the most expensive system.

In economic terms, its like the US comnpetitive economy has to carry a huge burden of overpaid medical staff but its not a disaster as every economy has inefficiencies.  

But in terms of this thread, the choice is between
(a) freedom to skip SS but then accept that people who do it must die in the gutter if they are broke or else
(b) make them pay as they earn and then support them at the end of life.

c) Have people bothered by the elderly dying in gutters (most people) pay taxes for or pay/donate to organizations that will offer a service that takes care of this problem.

Thats option (a) put another way.

[bb113]

If given a choice, I would rather just pay a tax that says "each year you are going to pay for an elderly person to live with dignity for a month" than the one that pretends the government is putting my money in a savings account for me.

[JusticeForYou]

Here is the problem. Everyone wants the Gold Spoon and Platinum Fork treatment. Unfortunately, not everyone contributes to the service equally. Those who pay more will get more and we are shocked at why that isn't a fair system. Those who pay less will get less.

Trying to equalize care will be doomed to failure. First, who decides at what level of care everyone should get. Second, the rich if they are not happy will 'supplement' their care and the inequalities will resume.

The program, imo, isn't really about care. It is about control of money for the governments use and through that control they will try to control people. We are reaching a breaking point where the government will be told. GTFO of our lives. Alas, it won't happen until 'the people' (and I mean the poor people) realize that all those promises are echos in the wind with no hope of it being accomplished.

The Bills are coming due and what really pisses me off is that those bills won't die with the people that caused the problems but will be passed on to the children and grandchildren. Don't be surprised when THEY have to start paying they say: "Screw this, throw the old farts away." Pass Euthanasia laws to get rid of the elderly that are having problems (being a burden).

Everyone likes math here (or most) but refuse to calculate the costs. I've herd people even argue the debt doesn't even matter, just print more money to increase liquidity. Seriously?

Social Security had good intentions that quickly paved the road to hell. Giving governments money and power that isn't necessary is ALWAYS a bad idea. Time and time again all programs taken over by the government have skyrocketing costs with decreasing efficiency and ineffectual programs.

People often mistake my positions as being for the wealthy, on the contrary, I want poor people to have a chance at becoming more fiscally secure. But I realize that there will always be poor people proportioned based on Middle, and High classes.  The ultimate goal is to have the largest middle class possible based on available resources. You will NEVER make everyone rich and wealthy. Maintaining a balance is hard but it isn't done by the Government. The King didn't want to sign the Magna Carta, he was forced to sign it by the people.

Democracy is bad because people always want what they consider to be free, but there are no free lunches. When they say: "Give me this program", they assume someone else will be paying for it or at least the cost is reduce because others are paying for it. Hence, they tend to vote in people that will give them what they want and not what they need. This is an old argument though, and a famous Scottish Economist had figured it out a long time ago. Ironically we have gone through his stages of a Democracy and now we are at the precipice. So, are we better than being 'selfish' and willing to take the sacrifices necessary or are we doomed to the collapse?

People tend to forget that their time here is limited and expect to never die and if they do to take it with them. They should be for providing for their prodigy to survive better than they did. People often mistake Democracy with Capitalism. Capitalism is not a system of government it is a system of Nature. Capitalism is a natural process on equal standing with evolution. There is a place for Social Security in a Capitalistic society. i.e. Groups will tend to protect and take care of themselves BUT not everybody.

Governments should provide a level playing field and protect the poor from 'bad' laws and the powerful that try to prevent them from becoming wealthy rather than protect the wealthy and powerful from being punished. Big Companies and Powerful people should fear the government and stay on the 'up and up' or be 'investigated' rather than the poor people being prevented from opening up 'Lemonade Stands' because it breaks some law. (if know the news story I'm referring to here.)

meh... I ranted again.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Social Security had good intentions that quickly paved the road to hell. Giving governments money and power that isn't necessary is ALWAYS a bad idea. Time and time again all programs taken over by the government have skyrocketing costs with decreasing efficiency and ineffectual programs.

..snip...

Um. Lets think.  Its been going fine for 80 or so years.  If nothing is done to fix it, it will pay out 75% of due benefits from 2037.  When it was introduced, life expectancy was less than 65.  By 2037, we can hope for life expectancy in the 90s.  If retirement age is raised to 68 from 65, the system will pay 100% of expected benefits forever.

Do the math on that; 30 years life with no need to work in return for 3 extra years work.  Isn't that a good deal?

Is that really your idea of "quickly paved the road to hell" To me, that looks like an amazing success.

[JusticeForYou]

...snip...

Social Security had good intentions that quickly paved the road to hell. Giving governments money and power that isn't necessary is ALWAYS a bad idea. Time and time again all programs taken over by the government have skyrocketing costs with decreasing efficiency and ineffectual programs.

..snip...

Um. Lets think.  Its been going fine for 80 or so years.  If nothing is done to fix it, it will pay out 75% of due benefits from 2037.  When it was introduced, life expectancy was less than 65.  By 2037, we can hope for life expectancy in the 90s.  If retirement age is raised to 68 from 65, the system will pay 100% of expected benefits forever.

Do the math on that; 30 years life with no need to work in return for 3 extra years work.  Isn't that a good deal?

Is that really your idea of "quickly paved the road to hell" To me, that looks like an amazing success.

Feudalism worked just fine for hundreds of years.

It's the simple math and dynamics of the SS system as structured. Everyone gets it. But even worse, everyone gets it disproportionally.

It worked great when there are more workers than retired people. Actually the more workers:elderly the better. However, this is soon not to be the case. Do you know how hard, if not impossible, it would be to maintain a Worker:Elderly ratio > 1 ?   Especially when everybody lives longer because of the system itself.

80 Years, hmm bet the problems start at year 72 (lol).

So they came up with a program that was doomed for failure but way off into the future to sell to people today. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Cheeseburger today.

I'm not saying it can't work but it can't work with 'everybody' receiving benefits. Want to extend it further than 2037? Tell everybody over the poverty line at retirement that "they are out of it" until they fall below the poverty line. That'll add a few more years. Go sell that to the masses.

BTW: I'd bet 10 BTC that it won't even make it 10 more years at 10,000 retiring EACH DAY. Lets look at that: 300,000 people a month go onto the system and barely that amount get jobs using Government tweaked stats. Real stats would be below that employment. It goes beyond employment though and into the Participation Rate which is terrible in the U.S. The Wizard(s) behind the curtain will soon be shown for what they are.

About 11,683 people are born each day in the US and 6,815 daily deaths.

Nope, can't continue offer Social Security as it is.

[Explodicle]

Do the math on that; 30 years life with no need to work in return for 3 extra years work.  Isn't that a good deal?

Whether or not it's a good deal depends entirely on
A) if you actually want to stop working
B) if there are even better investments available

If it is such a good deal, then it could be made optional and only a few fools would suffer, right?


And please forgive this science fiction tangent, but what if human life expectancy goes up a lot more due to a medical breakthrough? What if it becomes possible for the rich to live indefinitely? What if population growth worldwide plummets? What if a new financial system significantly limits which taxes are feasible? Who should foot the bill for these risks - the taxpayer or the investor?

Because I don't trust a bunch of bloodthirsty short-sighted voters to make the best choices on my behalf. The next 30 years might get pretty damn confusing.

[Hawker]

...snip...

About 11,683 people are born each day in the US and 6,815 daily deaths.

Nope, can't continue offer Social Security as it is.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that no-one noticed the baby boom and that no provision has been made for it.  In fact, Ronald Reagan reformed social security in the 1980s and the baby boomers are provided for.  Social security will have it worst year around 2037 and its outgoings will fall from then on as the boomer bulge dies off.  

If nothing is done to fix it, it will pay out 75% of due benefits from 2037. But if you add 3 years to the retirement age, there is never a problem.

The puzzle to me is that social security looks like a good deal.  If you didn't have it, you would have to buy a private pension plan which has higher admin costs and payout is not guaranteed.  Why would you even consider anything other than taking the extra 3 years work?

[JusticeForYou]

...snip...

About 11,683 people are born each day in the US and 6,815 daily deaths.

Nope, can't continue offer Social Security as it is.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that no-one noticed the baby boom and that no provision has been made for it.  In fact, Ronald Reagan reformed social security in the 1980s and the baby boomers are provided for.  Social security will have it worst year around 2037 and its outgoings will fall from then on as the boomer bulge dies off.  

If nothing is done to fix it, it will pay out 75% of due benefits from 2037. But if you add 3 years to the retirement age, there is never a problem.

The puzzle to me is that social security looks like a good deal.  If you didn't have it, you would have to buy a private pension plan which has higher admin costs and payout is not guaranteed.  Why would you even consider anything other than taking the extra 3 years work?

No, it was kind of hard to miss the Baby Boom. It's nice that Regan made provisions for it. (lol)  

Do you think the government just puts it into an account and keeps it for you? They borrow against it all the time and don't repay. But lets suppose they did pay even a modicum of interest on their borrowings. Unless they can at least keep its value on par with inflation, there is a problem.

Entitlement spending has become the Gorilla in the room. It is eating up more and more of our money. No problem just print more says the Keynsian. (I actually expect this, thanks cause I have made provisions for that).

So what is the easiest way to keep social security, it will be pay everyone with 'Zimbabwe' dollars at the cost of increased inflation. It's a trick, you think your getting your benefits but because the cost of everything increased they have actually decreased your benefits. The 'sheep' will never notice.

Everybody knows what Social Security is, but since it is the government doing it, it must be ok and it'll work.

I am from the government and I am here to help.

Tell ya what, why don't you try setting up the same system but with private funds from private people. You'll get arrested.

Social Security will go down as one of the greatest schemes ever perpetrated on the public. They will re-write history books about it.

My logic may just be flawed though. I do expect the government to NOT admit its failure and to 'make provisions' (lol) for it. Those 'provisions' will make people a lot of money because they are so predictable.

[Hawker]

...snip...

About 11,683 people are born each day in the US and 6,815 daily deaths.

Nope, can't continue offer Social Security as it is.

The problem with your logic is that it assumes that no-one noticed the baby boom and that no provision has been made for it.  In fact, Ronald Reagan reformed social security in the 1980s and the baby boomers are provided for.  Social security will have it worst year around 2037 and its outgoings will fall from then on as the boomer bulge dies off.  

If nothing is done to fix it, it will pay out 75% of due benefits from 2037. But if you add 3 years to the retirement age, there is never a problem.

The puzzle to me is that social security looks like a good deal.  If you didn't have it, you would have to buy a private pension plan which has higher admin costs and payout is not guaranteed.  Why would you even consider anything other than taking the extra 3 years work?

No, it was kind of hard to miss the Baby Boom. It's nice that Regan made provisions for it. (lol)  

Do you think the government just puts it into an account and keeps it for you? They borrow against it all the time and don't repay. But lets suppose they did pay even a modicum of interest on their borrowings. Unless they can at least keep its value on par with inflation, there is a problem.

Entitlement spending has become the Gorilla in the room. It is eating up more and more of our money. No problem just print more says the Keynsian. (I actually expect this, thanks cause I have made provisions for that).

So what is the easiest way to keep social security, it will be pay everyone with 'Zimbabwe' dollars at the cost of increased inflation. It's a trick, you think your getting your benefits but because the cost of everything increased they have actually decreased your benefits. The 'sheep' will never notice.

Everybody knows what Social Security is, but since it is the government doing it, it must be ok and it'll work.

I am from the government and I am here to help.

Tell ya what, why don't you try setting up the same system but with private funds from private people. You'll get arrested.

Social Security will go down as one of the greatest schemes ever perpetrated on the public. They will re-write history books about it.

My logic may just be flawed though. I do expect the government to NOT admit its failure and to 'make provisions' (lol) for it. Those 'provisions' will make people a lot of money because they are so predictable.

Your logic isn't flawed.  Your problem is that you are ignoring the facts and ranting. The fund will be fine if 3 years are added to the retirement age and your response is "Social Security will go down as one of the greatest schemes ever perpetrated on the public."  From what I see, social security has worked as intended for 80 or so years.  It will carry on doing so for another 20 or so.  Thats a century of success.   Add the 3 years to the retirement age and it works as intended forever.  

So you have a system that is cheap to run and that works as intended.  What exactly is your problem?  Is it the 3 years added to retirement age?

[JusticeForYou]

I have many problems with it.

You say the fix is just add 3 years. Hmm.. Lets look at that. It was 60, 62, 65, 67, and now lets just add another 3 to get to 70. Ok, I will concede the fact raising the age helps extend its use. So lets just raise it until have the people die before they will be eligible to receive any of it. Why stop at 70, go for 100 and give caveats to the program. If you make it here, your first check includes an all expenses paid trip around the world.

Yes of course raising the age helps the program. But be careful of what you wish for because you might just get it and its consequences. 

I say to not raise the age but lower it BUT take people off of the program that does not need it. People still think the money they paid into it was for them. It wasn't. It's not 'their' money that 'they' get back.

SS is not a retirement system. It's a safety net. The fall should still hurt when you hit the net though. You have millionaires collecting social security.

The government shouldn't have to fix it if they were doing their jobs. They should have prevented people from ever needing it, but that takes some power and control away from the government. They don't like to do that. They could've have easily just applied that tax and provisioned it as the contributors 'own' money and invested it for them. Even people at minimum wage that contributed for 50+ years would've had a nice chunk of change for retirement. But NO, they want control of the money and how and where it is to be spent.

In general, I am not for government programs that go into ∞ and effect generations that didn't even get a say in its original passing.

If the government felt it was necessary at the time, sure go ahead and pass it but within a generational timeframe so that it needs to be renewed in order for the program to continue. e.g. Congress must renew the program every 30 years or so. That way the next generation can't be burdened with the previous generations mistakes with out them voting on it.

[Hawker]

BTC_Bear - teh baby boom "bulge" is the cause of the present issue.  Its not likely to happen again as modern contraception means that educated people are less likely to have kids.  So the 3 years is a one off fix to a one off problem.

I agree its strange that rich and poor all get the same benefit. In fact, if you means test the social security benefit, then there will never be a need to to add the 3 years provided you find a cost effective way of means testing.

I also understand your multi-generational point.  But you guys have elections every 2 years and no politician who even hints at changing social security seems to get anywhere.  That suggests the system as it stands is very popular and that its popularity is reinforced every 2 years.

[Explodicle]

The problem with using means testing to deny benefits to rich people is that it could create perverse incentives on the margin. It's similar to how some people are better off staying on welfare/unemployment because getting a job would reduce their total income. Old people who are REALLY good at something might decide to stop very early if they value a dependable safety net.

IMHO we should replace all this red tape with an equal basic income for all citizens, all ages. Since it doesn't punish anyone for getting a job, the resulting drop in employment isn't as big as you might guess. If this basic income isn't enough for everyone, the government could fund a public health insurance option.

[JusticeForYou]

BTC_Bear - teh baby boom "bulge" is the cause of the present issue.  Its not likely to happen again as modern contraception means that educated people are less likely to have kids.  So the 3 years is a one off fix to a one off problem.

I agree its strange that rich and poor all get the same benefit. In fact, if you means test the social security benefit, then there will never be a need to to add the 3 years provided you find a cost effective way of means testing.

I also understand your multi-generational point.  But you guys have elections every 2 years and no politician who even hints at changing social security seems to get anywhere.  That suggests the system as it stands is very popular and that its popularity is reinforced every 2 years.

Yes, the elections are an issue. The problem with a Democracy is people don't act until it's to late unless there is a 'leader' that gives people what they need rather than what they want. The Republic did well for awhile, the Democracy is not doing so well. True Democracies are a disaster. We are at the part of Rome where its leaders give the mob what they want to prevent them from revolting. As Rome found out, that wasn't the best thing to do. Actually the comparisons are scary. Power was consolidated in Caesar because the Senate didn't want to shoulder the blame. Caesar took that power and ran amuck, making the Senate just a token without any real power.
Congress willingly gives up its power to the Executive branch for political reasons.

I have hope however, we have a Judicial Branch that should come to its senses but if that fails, the U.S. isn't really a Country but an agreement of States to act as a country. So as things go wrong, the power will fall back to individual states. Those states that get it right will prevail and those that get it wrong will fail and copy those that get it right. The U.S. is centralized decentralization. California is learning that its ways are running them into the ground and there is no money form the FED to help them.

[stochastic]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

Get disability and life insurance.  Save for your retirement.  Problem solved and no need for the Social Security Program.

[stochastic]

...If retirement age is raised to 68 from 65, the system will pay 100% of expected benefits forever.

Do the math on that; 30 years life with no need to work in return for 3 extra years work.  Isn't that a good deal?

For those born after 1959 the "normal retirement age" is 67 years old.  It probably should be raised to 70.

People can start collecting at 62 but their benefit would be reduced.

The problem with SS, is that when it first started it did a good job to help older people get out of poverty.  As living expenses and people's expectations of what makes normal living has increased, the social security benefit becomes paltry.  The average social security benefit in 2012 is $1,230.

66% of Americans do not save enough for retirement.  This means that 25% reduction in the expected social security benefit will be very bad for the future elderly.

So what can we do?  I agree that getting rid of the Social Security program would just have people take their extra money and spend it on more things they don't need.  They won't buy disability insurance, they won't buy long term care insurance for their parents, and they won't save for retirement.

Often, people are told to do more for other people, but I say first people need to take responsibility for themselves.  If people went to a financial advisor and they did not have life or disability insurance, then most financial advisors would require their clients buy this insurance.  If the client refused, then the financial advisor would refuse to serve the client.  Our government could do the same thing.

[Hawker]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

Get disability and life insurance.  Save for your retirement.  Problem solved and no need for the Social Security Program.

You are absolutely right.  But you left out the essential part:  "If you have opted out of social security and you are starving in the street, then die in the gutter and stop bothering the rest of us."

Also, the private pension system is way more expensive to run than social security.

Good luck persuading people to vote for either of these ideas.

[JusticeForYou]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

Get disability and life insurance.  Save for your retirement.  Problem solved and no need for the Social Security Program.

You are absolutely right.  But you left out the essential part:  "If you have opted out of social security and you are starving in the street, then die in the gutter and stop bothering the rest of us."

Also, the private pension system is way more expensive to run than social security.

Good luck persuading people to vote for either of these ideas.

It seems you have a heart, as do I, so lets just ask this: Do you think the Government is the appropriate institution to run Social Security?

I despise Government run programs. Dole out money, yea. They are good at that, but managing the money? No, not so good at that.

I'm for a limited government, pretty darn limited Government. I realize that means a lot of people will lose their jobs but the government shouldn't have hired them in the first place.

I am also against 'career' politicians. I am for 'representatives' being like jury members: you don't want to do it because you have a life but you have to do it because it's a civic duty.

There shouldn't be a Congressional Retirement Plan (Seriously?).

I'd prefer, Joe the Plumber in the White House especially since he'd know what to do with all the BS people will tell him.

There is a reason the founding fathers put American Citizen age 35 or greater. NO requirement for Ivy League University and Foreign Affairs Experience, or having life experience as a 'community organizer'.

Social Security, as it was written, provided/provides a good safety net so people aren't dying in the gutter as you put it. However, it has run amuck and needs serious review. Maybe even scrapping and a re-write. I am thinking a means testing on a yearly basis. If you're below the poverty line you get it, if not you don't. The 'grey area' will just have to suck it up and make a little more or a little less.

But just raising the age requirement is a travesty. It's a trick so they can say: We fixed it.  When actually they screwed the pooch and mismanaged it so badly that they need more people to die before they get it. So, NO, the government is saying: Die in the gutter if you didn't make it to our required age.

LOWERING the required age requirement would show good management not raising it.

Sorry... I do tend to rant on certain subjects. I try to wake up 'the sheep' (people that act on emotion and believe everything that is told to them and don't bother to find out anything themselves.)

[stochastic]

Yeah nice stop paying so when something bad happens to you you will be fucked. Or maybe you will do like that father who went in a hospital with a pistol to have help for his son who required medical assistance (but since they were poor and could not pay the insurance, no help for you, you poor, you die)

/facepalm

Get disability and life insurance.  Save for your retirement.  Problem solved and no need for the Social Security Program.

You are absolutely right.  But you left out the essential part:  "If you have opted out of social security and you are starving in the street, then die in the gutter and stop bothering the rest of us."

Also, the private pension system is way more expensive to run than social security.

Good luck persuading people to vote for either of these ideas.

When SS first started it was just a fixed life annuity.  When the US government started to add disability coverage and survivorship to children coverage, that is when the time to insolvency started to emerge.

People have to purchase private insurance for life and disability anyway.  They also have to save for retirement.  There is absolutely no financial advisor that would tell people to not purchase private insurance or to save for retirement and to only rely on Social Security.  Since people have to go to the private insurance market and save for retirement themselves anyway, then what is the purpose of SS?  It is just an extra thing in case the person never planned, didn't planned enough, or their plans failed.  If that is the case, then SS should not be paid to those with a certain high income level and instead should be given to low income retirees, disabled persons, or survivors of a deceased parent or spouse.

[Hawker]

...snip...

It seems you have a heart, as do I, so lets just ask this: Do you think the Government is the appropriate institution to run Social Security?

I despise Government run programs. Dole out money, yea. They are good at that, but managing the money? No, not so good at that.

...snip...

Social security is exactly the type of thing government is good at.

There are things that people know they should do.  For example, not driving after a few drinks.  Or saving for retirement.  Or wearing seatbelts and putting babies in special car seats.  A righteous minority do these things because they know that its right.  A small group won't do them no matter what you say.  The majority will do it if they are forced to.

That same majority will vote for laws that forces them to do the right thing.  Social security is a perfect example of this.

Is government the right institution to run social security?  That I don't know.  In the UK, it would be run by a private company and one of our ongoing issues is "fat cats" that run these companies making ridiculous salaries regardless of success.  Brits say that the private companies do the same work for less money than having civil servants do it because you can't fire incompetent civil servants.  Most of the guys who say that publicly are part of a magic circle that bounces between these big companies and parliament so they have a vested interest.  I really don't know.  

[JusticeForYou]

Social security is exactly the type of thing government is good at.

There are things that people know they should do.  For example, not driving after a few drinks.  Or saving for retirement.  Or wearing seatbelts and putting babies in special car seats.  A righteous minority do these things because they know that its right.  A small group won't do them no matter what you say.  The majority will do it if they are forced to.

That same majority will vote for laws that forces them to do the right thing.  Social security is a perfect example of this.

Governments that mandate savings, wearing seat belts, or putting babies in seats, while good intentioned, are not good ideas.

Don't wear your seat belt then take the risk to die.

Why stop at mandating seat belts? There are plenty of things that can be mandated to 'save' lives. Make everyone move out of flood zones, Make eating a pound of bacon illegal, get rid of McDonald's.

Governments shouldn't replace personal responsibility nor should it try.  It should guide not mandate. Create voluntary programs, publish statistics (real ones), offer programs to change behavior, etc... there are tons of examples.

This whole debate and argument is moot though. Entitlements just can't be saved as they are. People can debate about it all they want, just like the families debating over Steak or Spam with $2 to spend.

[Hawker]

Social security is exactly the type of thing government is good at.

There are things that people know they should do.  For example, not driving after a few drinks.  Or saving for retirement.  Or wearing seatbelts and putting babies in special car seats.  A righteous minority do these things because they know that its right.  A small group won't do them no matter what you say.  The majority will do it if they are forced to.

That same majority will vote for laws that forces them to do the right thing.  Social security is a perfect example of this.

Governments that mandate savings, wearing seat belts, or putting babies in seats, while good intentioned, are not good ideas.

Don't wear your seat belt then take the risk to die.

Why stop at mandating seat belts? There are plenty of things that can be mandated to 'save' lives. Make everyone move out of flood zones, Make eating a pound of bacon illegal, get rid of McDonald's.

Governments shouldn't replace personal responsibility nor should it try.  It should guide not mandate. Create voluntary programs, publish statistics (real ones), offer programs to change behavior, etc... there are tons of examples.

This whole debate and argument is moot though. Entitlements just can't be saved as they are. People can debate about it all they want, just like the families debating over Steak or Spam with $2 to spend.

Then you are part of the righteous minority who do things because they make sense.  But you have to accept that there are a lot of people who are not like you, that those people vote and they make laws to force themselves to do the right thing.  In the case of social security, people want it and the scheme seems to be a huge success.  I wish we had something that good here...the UK pension is about only $100 per week and above that you have to rely on savings/pensions which have been gutted over the last 15 years.

[FirstAscent]

Governments that mandate savings, wearing seat belts, or putting babies in seats, while good intentioned, are not good ideas.

Don't wear your seat belt then take the risk to die.

Wearing seat belts wasn't practiced too rigorously until it became mandated. Perhaps you're too young to remember? The law requiring you to wear seat belts is exactly what has made it a natural habit to put one's seat belt on when they drive.

It wasn't always like that. You have the law to thank for what is now considered a norm.

[ribuck]

Wearing seat belts wasn't practiced too rigorously until it became mandated. Perhaps you're too young to remember? The law requiring you to wear seat belts is exactly what has made it a natural habit to put one's seat belt on when they drive.

It wasn't always like that. You have the law to thank for what is now considered a norm.

That's not accurate. Seat belt wearing became the norm, not because of the law change (which just rode on the coat-tails of increasing awareness of road safety), but because the inertia-reel seat belt was invented. This reduced the inconvenience of seat-belt wearing.

I was a child in the 1960s, and our family car came without seat belts. We voluntarily fitted after-market seat belts, long before there were any laws. But they were the old type that had to be adjusted for each person, which was a real nuisance.

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

[Hawker]

Wearing seat belts wasn't practiced too rigorously until it became mandated. Perhaps you're too young to remember? The law requiring you to wear seat belts is exactly what has made it a natural habit to put one's seat belt on when they drive.

It wasn't always like that. You have the law to thank for what is now considered a norm.

That's not accurate. Seat belt wearing became the norm, not because of the law change (which just rode on the coat-tails of increasing awareness of road safety), but because the inertia-reel seat belt was invented. This reduced the inconvenience of seat-belt wearing.

I was a child in the 1960s, and our family car came without seat belts. We voluntarily fitted after-market seat belts, long before there were any laws. But they were the old type that had to be adjusted for each person, which was a real nuisance.

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

I once had a white shirt ruined in Turkey when I put a seat belt on and no-one had used it before.  It was an inertia reel seat belt and the damn thing had years of dust on it.

Same people use seat belts all the time now as its illegal not to. 

[ribuck]

I once had a white shirt ruined in Turkey when I put a seat belt on and no-one had used it before.  It was an inertia reel seat belt and the damn thing had years of dust on it.

Cute anecdote, but it doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the driver doesn't normally have a passenger. Maybe you'll now claim that it was a taxi that had been plying the streets for five years, but I don't care.

The seat belt was available for you to use. Why advocate violent compulsion?

[Hawker]

I once had a white shirt ruined in Turkey when I put a seat belt on and no-one had used it before.  It was an inertia reel seat belt and the damn thing had years of dust on it.

Cute anecdote, but it doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the driver doesn't normally have a passenger. Maybe you'll now claim that it was a taxi that had been plying the streets for five years, but I don't care.

The seat belt was available for you to use. Why advocate violent compulsion?

A minority of people use seat belts just because it makes sense.

A far greater number needs legal compulsion.  And they know it - thats why politicians who make laws like that always get elected. 

[FirstAscent]

Wearing seat belts wasn't practiced too rigorously until it became mandated. Perhaps you're too young to remember? The law requiring you to wear seat belts is exactly what has made it a natural habit to put one's seat belt on when they drive.

It wasn't always like that. You have the law to thank for what is now considered a norm.

That's not accurate. Seat belt wearing became the norm, not because of the law change (which just rode on the coat-tails of increasing awareness of road safety), but because the inertia-reel seat belt was invented. This reduced the inconvenience of seat-belt wearing.

I was a child in the 1960s, and our family car came without seat belts. We voluntarily fitted after-market seat belts, long before there were any laws. But they were the old type that had to be adjusted for each person, which was a real nuisance.

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

What a load of crap.

Let me repeat myself: Seat belts are a habit today and most people actually feel naked without wearing them because in the '80s, they were forced to start wearing them.

As for insurance companies, again, you miss the mark. Insurance companies only raise your rates for not wearing a seat belt when you get a ticket for not wearing one.

Do me a favor. If you're going to post, post legitimate material that is logical and has a ring of truth to it.

[Explodicle]

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

As for insurance companies, again, you miss the mark. Insurance companies only raise your rates for not wearing a seat belt when you get a ticket for not wearing one.

Are you assuming that insurance companies wouldn't change their policies if the law was different? What you're describing sounds like an information asymmetry market failure.

If I was an insurer and had no data from seat belt tickets, I would require that the car records detailed seat belt data, and that the customer shares these data. Right now it would be pointless because cops are checking instead.

In either the seat belt analogy or SS, I think that people will respond to their incentives. If you give people a situation where they can assume all risks are mitigated on their behalf, of course they will be less careful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

[FirstAscent]

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

As for insurance companies, again, you miss the mark. Insurance companies only raise your rates for not wearing a seat belt when you get a ticket for not wearing one.

Are you assuming that insurance companies wouldn't change their policies if the law was different? What you're describing sounds like an information asymmetry market failure.

If I was an insurer and had no data from seat belt tickets, I would require that the car records detailed seat belt data, and that the customer shares these data. Right now it would be pointless because cops are checking instead.

In either the seat belt analogy or SS, I think that people will respond to their incentives. If you give people a situation where they can assume all risks are mitigated on their behalf, of course they will be less careful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and it's not a bad idea, but have you thought about it from all angles? I suspect not. Consider...

1. Most everyone wears seat belts now. I have looked around when I drive, and I mean everyone wears seat belts. Most everyone feels more comfortable doing so.

2. The above is because of the seat belt laws.

3. People now put on their seat belts habitually, not even thinking about laws. They feel more comfortable doing so.

Now, tell me how points 1, 2 and 3 above are less preferable than being forced to hand over monitoring of your daily life to a corporation?

Furthermore, your proposal might as well include vehicle telemetry: speed, rate of acceleration, rate of deceleration, cornering speeds, records of tire replacement, records of vehicle maintenance, etc. Sounds just as bad as Big Brother.

[TECSHARE]

I see the forum's two most preeminent sock puppets are hard at work derailing this thread.

[Hawker]

I see the forum's two most preeminent sock puppets are hard at work derailing this thread.

And you decided we needed help :O

[FirstAscent]

I see the forum's two most preeminent sock puppets are hard at work derailing this thread.

Most of the members in this forum are sock puppets for the libertarian 'think tanks'. Organizations, I might add, that can be shown to be quite deceptive, and in general, political idealists masquerading as stewards of scientific studies.

[Foxpup]

If I was an insurer and had no data from seat belt tickets, I would require that the car records detailed seat belt data, and that the customer shares these data. Right now it would be pointless because cops are checking instead.

Or you could just ask the customer if he wears a seat belt, then refuse to pay out if he claims to always wear a seat belt but the accident investigation reveals that he wasn't wearing it at the time of the accident.

[Explodicle]

Even today, if there were no seat belt laws, most people would wear them because insurance companies would charge much higher rates for non-wearers. But those few people who didn't want to wear them would retain that freedom.

As for insurance companies, again, you miss the mark. Insurance companies only raise your rates for not wearing a seat belt when you get a ticket for not wearing one.

Are you assuming that insurance companies wouldn't change their policies if the law was different? What you're describing sounds like an information asymmetry market failure.

If I was an insurer and had no data from seat belt tickets, I would require that the car records detailed seat belt data, and that the customer shares these data. Right now it would be pointless because cops are checking instead.

In either the seat belt analogy or SS, I think that people will respond to their incentives. If you give people a situation where they can assume all risks are mitigated on their behalf, of course they will be less careful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and it's not a bad idea, but have you thought about it from all angles? I suspect not. Consider...

1. Most everyone wears seat belts now. I have looked around when I drive, and I mean everyone wears seat belts. Most everyone feels more comfortable doing so.

2. The above is because of the seat belt laws.

3. People now put on their seat belts habitually, not even thinking about laws. They feel more comfortable doing so.

Now, tell me how points 1, 2 and 3 above are less preferable than being forced to hand over monitoring of your daily life to a corporation?

Furthermore, your proposal might as well include vehicle telemetry: speed, rate of acceleration, rate of deceleration, cornering speeds, records of tire replacement, records of vehicle maintenance, etc. Sounds just as bad as Big Brother.

You're right about at least one thing... I haven't thought about it from all angles and certainly can't; my solution wouldn't even be the best one by now if it had to compete with all others.

In my humble opinion it's preferable to have many insurance companies with varying policies and rates than one monitoring entity with one rate, one policy, and armed investigators patroling the streets. "Big Brother" isn't just collecting data, he's pulling me over and looking in my window.

Just as bad? The differences are choice, competition, and nonviolence. I can easily escape an unfair insurance company.

(It's kinda funny, most of the time I feel like these political analogies are inaccurate, but seatbelts turned out to be quite comparable to Social Security.)

[Explodicle]

I see the forum's two most preeminent sock puppets are hard at work derailing this thread.

Certainly better than a groupthink circle-jerk. I for one think FirstAscent raises valid and interesting points.

[Roger_Murdock]

Here's Stossel's take on seat-belt laws. 

Even the best safety regulations have unexpected costs. Seat belts save 15,000 lives a year, but it's possible that they kill more people than they save.

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly.
It's called the Peltzman Effect — a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

Also, while passengers were less likely to die, there were more accidents and more pedestrians were hit.

Perhaps the best safety device would be a spike mounted on the steering wheel — pointed right at the driver's chest.

There's another reason to think seat belt laws have been counterproductive. Before government made seat belts mandatory, several automakers offered them as options. Volvo ran ads touting seat belts, laminated glass, padded dashboards, etc., as the sort of things that responsible parents should want. I concede that government action expanded seat belt use faster than would have otherwise happened, but by interfering with the market, government also stifled innovation. That kills people.

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard. Because they would be more comfortable, more passengers would wear them. Over time, the free market in seat belts would save more lives.

We don't know what good things we might have if the heavy foot of government didn't step in to limit our options.

In a free country, it should be up to adult individuals to make their own choices about risk. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me safety, or give me death." Liberty is what America is supposed to be about.

[FirstAscent]

Here's Stossel's take on seat-belt laws.  

Even the best safety regulations have unexpected costs. Seat belts save 15,000 lives a year, but it's possible that they kill more people than they save.

University of Chicago economist Sam Peltzman argues that increased safety features on cars have the ironic effect of encouraging people to drive more recklessly.
It's called the Peltzman Effect — a variation on what insurance experts call "moral hazard." Studies show that people drive faster when they are snugly enclosed in seat belts.

Also, while passengers were less likely to die, there were more accidents and more pedestrians were hit.

Perhaps the best safety device would be a spike mounted on the steering wheel — pointed right at the driver's chest.

There's another reason to think seat belt laws have been counterproductive. Before government made seat belts mandatory, several automakers offered them as options. Volvo ran ads touting seat belts, laminated glass, padded dashboards, etc., as the sort of things that responsible parents should want. I concede that government action expanded seat belt use faster than would have otherwise happened, but by interfering with the market, government also stifled innovation. That kills people.

Here's my reasoning: The first government mandate created a standard for seat belts. That relieved auto companies of the need to compete on seat belt safety and comfort. Drivers and passengers haven't benefitted from improvements competitive carmakers might have made.

If every auto company were trying to invent a better belt, today, instead of one seat belt, I bet there'd be six, and all would be better and more comfortable than today's standard. Because they would be more comfortable, more passengers would wear them. Over time, the free market in seat belts would save more lives.

We don't know what good things we might have if the heavy foot of government didn't step in to limit our options.

In a free country, it should be up to adult individuals to make their own choices about risk. Patrick Henry didn't say, "Give me safety, or give me death." Liberty is what America is supposed to be about.

Hmmm...

Wikipedia quote:

John F. Stossel (born March 6, 1947) is an American consumer reporter, investigative journalist, author and libertarian columnist.

Is it conceivably possible, in this world, or another, that some news, reporting, journalism, or 'research' that attempts to make a point on behalf of the predominantly libertarian views on this forum could actually be sourced from a non libertarian?

Is there a chance in hell that there exists data or quality views which reinforce the dominant views on this forum which are not suspect with regard to the biased viewpoint of the article writer?

Can anyone here source some data on their pet libertarian views which do not come from libertarians? Does there exist data and research which support such libertarian views which isn't tainted, suspicious, poisoned or shaded by a libertarian pet ideology prior to its reporting?

Hello? I'm talking to you (just about all of you).

[bb113]

First ascent,

Provide some data to refute or agree with then. There has been none on either side so far in this thread so attack the messenger strategy is out of place.

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation#Effects

The stats on seat belt laws are pretty clear.  Fatalaties fall like a stone once the law takes effect.  The UK was one of the last major countries to enforce a seat belt law.  It was predicted to save about 1000 lives per year but until 1991 it came nowhere near until extended to back seat passengers at which point it started saving about 2000 lives per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8243841.stm

In 1983 seat belt use in front of vehicles becomes compulsory
Back seat belt use by children becomes law in 1989; extended to adults in 1991

In 1982, 37% of drivers wore seatbelts - by 2007, it was 94%

Since inertia seat belts have been around since about 1970, it implies that:
- 37% of people do the right thing because they know it to be right
- 57% do the right thing if they are ordered to by law  
- 6% will not do the right thing no matter what you say or do

Extended to social security and you see why the law is so popular.  About 50% of the population depend on it to make them do stuff they know they need but would otherwise skip.

[FirstAscent]

First ascent,

Provide some data to refute or agree with then. There has been none on either side so far in this thread so attack the messenger strategy is out of place.

Again, you miss the point. See if you can figure it out from this example:

Let's assume that governments instead had passed a law which stated that seat belts may not be worn while driving. Mr. Stossel, then, would find such a law to be an affront to his belief about what constitutes a violation of his personal liberties. Being the libertarian that he is, he would do 'research' (note the quotes), arriving at the conclusion that seat belts increase his personal safety while driving. He does not care about the real truth of the efficacy of seat belts. He cares about having his personal liberties violated. Thus his 'research' is questionable, as his goals are politically motivated, as opposed to getting to the real truth. I'm surprised you still haven't learned your lesson after a thorough discussion about this months ago. Do you recall how you fell for the shenanigans of a 'scientist' discussing climate change who also happened to be a shill hired by the tobacco industry to say cigarette smoke does not cause cancer?

You see, Mr. Stossel, and essentially all libertarian 'think tanks', and essentially all creators of articles linked to by the individuals here are not to be taken as seriously as you believe they should. But we already have proof that you have fallen victim to such charlatans yourself, so if anyone can benefit from my analysis, it should be you. If you wish to revisit the discussion about your own gullibility and a thorough analysis of it, please reread this thread, starting right about here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62099.140

[bb113]

First ascent,

Provide some data to refute or agree with then. There has been none on either side so far in this thread so attack the messenger strategy is out of place.

Again, you miss the point. See if you can figure it out from this example:

Let's assume that governments instead had passed a law which stated that seat belts may not be worn while driving. Mr. Stossel, then, would find such a law to be an affront to his belief about what constitutes a violation of his personal liberties. Being the libertarian that he is, he would do 'research' (note the quotes), arriving at the conclusion that seat belts increase his personal safety while driving. He does not care about the real truth of the efficacy of seat belts. He cares about having his personal liberties violated. Thus his 'research' is questionable, as his goals are politically motivated, as opposed to getting to the real truth. I'm surprised you still haven't learned your lesson after a thorough discussion about this months ago. Do you recall how you fell for the shenanigans of a 'scientist' discussing climate change who also happened to be a shill hired by the tobacco industry to say cigarette smoke does not cause cancer?

You see, Mr. Stossel, and essentially all libertarian 'think tanks', and essentially all creators of articles linked to by the individuals here are not to be taken as seriously as you believe they should. But we already have proof that you have fallen victim to such charlatans yourself, so if anyone can benefit from my analysis, it should be you. If you wish to revisit the discussion about your own gullibility and a thorough analysis of it, please reread this thread, starting right about here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62099.140

The only thing I fell for was the media portrayal of global warming risk. What's his name (the contrarian) raised good points and the studies are being done to refute or support them as we speak. That is just science being done as it should be done.


Studies by road safety authorities conclude that seat belt legislation has reduced the number of casualties in road accidents.


From Hawker's link:

Experiments using both crash test dummies and human cadavers also indicated that wearing seat belts should lead to reduced risk of death and injury in car crashes.

Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.[www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811206.pdf]

An earlier statistical analysis by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claimed that seat belts save over 10,000 lives every year in the US. According to Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data:[6]

    "Research on the effectiveness of child safety seats has found them to reduce fatal injury by 71% for infants less than 1 year old and by 54% for toddlers 1-4 years old in cars. [...] Among passenger vehicle occupants over 4 years old, safety belts saved an estimated 11,889 lives in 2000."

In Victoria, Australia the use of seat belts became compulsory in 1970. By 1974 decreases of 37% in deaths and 41% in injuries, including a decrease of 27% in spinal injuries, were observed, compared with extrapolations based on pre-law trends.[citation needed]

By 2009, despite large increases in population and the number of vehicles, road deaths in Victoria had fallen below 300, less than a third of the 1970 level, the lowest since records were kept, and far below the per capita rate in jurisdictions such as the United States. This reduction was generally attributed to aggressive road safety campaigns beginning with the seat belt laws.[7][8]

We all know stats can be made into damn lies. I personally think seatbelts are a good idea. That is based off no data, only common sense. We know the cars are crash tested these days assuming the passengers are wearing seatbelts, so imo wear the damn seatbelt. It will be interesting to know how they estimate injuries that would have happened if variable x equaled 1 instead of 0.

[bb113]

Well I examined this link:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811206.pdf

Which is the basis for these statements:

Studies of accident outcomes suggest that fatality rates among car occupants are reduced by between 30 and 50 per cent if seat belts are worn. The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that death risks for a driver wearing a lap-shoulder seat belt are reducing by 48 per cent. The same study indicated that in 2007, an estimated 15 147 lives were saved by seat belts in the United States and that, if seat belt use were increased to 100 per cent an additional 5024 lives would have been saved.

It fails to inform. There is no analysis of significance, etc. We need to find the raw data and examine it ourselves before even trying to draw any conclusions.

[BrightAnarchist]

Why don't you just keep paying it so that those not as fortunate as you will have a little bit of something when they can no longer work?

Do you know the basic principle of insurance? Some people mistakenly believe it's so that over time, the amount of insurance premiums you pay will on average equal the amount you might need to cover that rare accident you have. But that's not right. It's so that the few (we don't know who they will be) will be able to deal with that $100,000 claim. It might be you one day.

When you're twenty, nobody knows where you'll be when you're 70. If you're wealthy, great. If not, then at least you'll have a little something from social security.

Do you know how to smooth your equity curve from investing? The method is called diversification. It might be diversification into different assets, or diversification of different investing strategies. The point is to smooth the equity curve, which reduces risk. Social security is a smoothing function, applied in aggregate, to the country's citizens' retirement income.

You may not know this (I suspect you don't), but if there were enough individuals like you who could opt out of social security, then there would probably be a lot of economic problems revolving around the older generation. Actually, I don't just suspect you don't know that. It's blatantly obvious from your post that you don't.

You obviously don't have a clue about the US social security system. First of all it is already paying out more than is coming in since 2010. Second, by the time he retires THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT FOR ANYONE. Additionally they are already talking about taking not just public, but PRIVATE retirement pensions to help pay for "austerity measures". The US government uses social security money as if they own it. They use it to fund other government projects, and to feed their thief crony buddies retiree's money. He worked hard for his pay, he should get to keep every penny if he wants instead of paying it to some bloated bureaucracy infested by fascists and parasites.

+1000

Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.

[stochastic]

Brits say that the private companies do the same work for less money than having civil servants do it because you can't fire incompetent civil servants.  Most of the guys who say that publicly are part of a magic circle that bounces between these big companies and parliament so they have a vested interest.

Makes me want to watch Yes Minister again.

[Gareth Nelson]

Believe it or not, anyone can opt out of social security...

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSTrustIndenture.pdf

By following those complex instructions anyone can opt out, however neither employers nor the government will recognise the opt-out. Good luck trying though.

Actually once you complete the paperwork they are legally obligated to recognize it. Of course people will find it odd, but that doesn't change the law.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

The instructions on sedm.org basically have a big pile of the same old tax protestor arguments such as the nonsensical claim that you can be a citizen of a state but not of the US. It's fine to object to the principle behind taxation on ethical grounds, but claiming that it's already actually illegal and there's some hidden trick to completely opt out of it is insane and if anything courts will tend to treat you more harshly through trying to use these kinds of arguments than if you simply turn up and say "I did not pay my tax because I have a moral objection to doing so".

Look up the concept of "frivolous arguments" as regards legal proceedings.

[Gareth Nelson]

Not to mention that sedm.org lists various court cases as "proof" of their nonsense when in fact they're anything but if you bother to read the actual rulings......... and they also list biblical references as if these count for anything in a secular court.

[cryptoanarchist]

Can someone point to the law that REQUIRES me to have a SSN?

[mystery2048]

This sounds like an aweful idea...

[TheButterZone]

Can someone point to the law that REQUIRES me to have a SSN?

I've known my SSN for longer than I can remember, probably before I even became a teenager. How do you force the government to rescind your number (whether you've paid nothing into SS, very little because you've mostly been unemployed, or lots) without forfeiting U.S. citizenship? And if you want to have a "legit" job or do anything else where SSN/TIN is asked of you, how do you respond? There's nothing more I'd like to do right now than say "I don't have that number and you can't make me get one."

[Hunterbunter]

4.The Queen (how else does the Royal family get funded? Via our taxes of course)

The Queen baffles me.  One of the richest people in the world and she gets both an old age pension and a massive public subvention.

Actually at the start of her reign she agreed to surrender income from her hereditary titles to the Treasury in return for a stipend and coverage of HoS duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family

Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, with holdings of £7.3 billion in 2011.[5] It is held in trust, and cannot be sold or owned by the Sovereign in a private capacity.[6] In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid.[2] For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas reported parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period.[7]

So at least in recent years, she's been subsidizing the lives of UK citizens when she didn't have to. No wonder you have free healthcare with leadership like that.

[Hawker]

...snip...

So at least in recent years, she's been subsidizing the lives of UK citizens when she didn't have to. No wonder you have free healthcare with leadership like that.

We do not have free health care.  We use the taxation system to collect the cost of it - its still paid for.

[cryptoanarchist]

Can someone point to the law that REQUIRES me to have a SSN?

I've known my SSN for longer than I can remember, probably before I even became a teenager. How do you force the government to rescind your number (whether you've paid nothing into SS, very little because you've mostly been unemployed, or lots) without forfeiting U.S. citizenship? And if you want to have a "legit" job or do anything else where SSN/TIN is asked of you, how do you respond? There's nothing more I'd like to do right now than say "I don't have that number and you can't make me get one."

I don't know, that's almost exactly what I said at my last job when they asked for one. I had to stop working there but they still got me a last check.

There's no point in rescinding the number - its attached to a juristic entity that the government owns as well - the ALL CAPS version of your name. You can't ask them to change THEIR record keeping system.

What you can do is take ownership of the juristic entity that is your ALL CAPS name and then just stop using a SSN since it doesn't apply to you anyway.

It'll be a LOT harder to get a job, because most employers are rightfully intimidated of being shut down. But you'll be off the grid.

[Gareth Nelson]

Can someone point to the law that REQUIRES me to have a SSN?

I've known my SSN for longer than I can remember, probably before I even became a teenager. How do you force the government to rescind your number (whether you've paid nothing into SS, very little because you've mostly been unemployed, or lots) without forfeiting U.S. citizenship? And if you want to have a "legit" job or do anything else where SSN/TIN is asked of you, how do you respond? There's nothing more I'd like to do right now than say "I don't have that number and you can't make me get one."

I don't know, that's almost exactly what I said at my last job when they asked for one. I had to stop working there but they still got me a last check.

There's no point in rescinding the number - its attached to a juristic entity that the government owns as well - the ALL CAPS version of your name. You can't ask them to change THEIR record keeping system.

What you can do is take ownership of the juristic entity that is your ALL CAPS name and then just stop using a SSN since it doesn't apply to you anyway.

It'll be a LOT harder to get a job, because most employers are rightfully intimidated of being shut down. But you'll be off the grid.

This is again total nonsense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

[cryptoanarchist]

This is again total nonsense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "nonsense", but if you are talking about the ALL CAPS name thing, you're 100% wrong. I have a common law copyright to my strawman that was published in the paper and they absolutely recognized that fact in court. To this day, I haven't paid any penalties nor served any time for 3 different tickets. The cops know where I am and haven't done anything.

[TECSHARE]

Not to mention that sedm.org lists various court cases as "proof" of their nonsense when in fact they're anything but if you bother to read the actual rulings......... and they also list biblical references as if these count for anything in a secular court.

All of our "secular" laws have a origin in religious texts and practices not to mention the government of the US specifically enshrines the right to freely practice your religion. Some religions, like the Amish for example have been known to file for exemption due to it infringing on their ability to practice their faith. Because of the religious nature of the exemption policy of course they are going to be referencing religious texts BECAUSE THAT IS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE FOR THE EXEMPTION.

There is nothing stopping you from "joining" a religion and claiming an exemption. As far as employment, you are legally entitled to set up a "placeholder" tax ID number with your employer and the Social Security Administration. It has all the functions of a SSN you are used to, but once you have filed the correct paperwork it no longer serves the same legal function, but is enough to stop employers from wondering if you are a tax evader or felon on the run.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

[Hawker]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

[Gareth Nelson]

This is again total nonsense.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "nonsense", but if you are talking about the ALL CAPS name thing, you're 100% wrong. I have a common law copyright to my strawman that was published in the paper and they absolutely recognized that fact in court. To this day, I haven't paid any penalties nor served any time for 3 different tickets. The cops know where I am and haven't done anything.

Citation needed - i.e an actual copy of the court's opinion wherein they state that your ALL CAPS name is somehow a separate legal entity from you.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

[Hawker]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

Hmm. Can you provide a source for that? I have never heard of an American who is not entitled to SS at 70 but I have to admit that its not something I ever looked into.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

Hmm. Can you provide a source for that? I have never heard of an American who is not entitled to SS at 70 but I have to admit that its not something I ever looked into.

I don't know or care what the legal masonic bullshit says. I'm not entitled to money from a program that I didn't support. I don't contract with the government AT ALL, so how could I pick it up?

[Hawker]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

Hmm. Can you provide a source for that? I have never heard of an American who is not entitled to SS at 70 but I have to admit that its not something I ever looked into.

I don't know or care what the legal masonic bullshit says. I'm not entitled to money from a program that I didn't support. I don't contract with the government AT ALL, so how could I pick it up?

Please provide a source.  I though any deadbeat could claim social security.  Even people who have been in jail all their lives. 

[cryptoanarchist]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

Hmm. Can you provide a source for that? I have never heard of an American who is not entitled to SS at 70 but I have to admit that its not something I ever looked into.

I don't know or care what the legal masonic bullshit says. I'm not entitled to money from a program that I didn't support. I don't contract with the government AT ALL, so how could I pick it up?

Please provide a source.  I though any deadbeat could claim social security.  Even people who have been in jail all their lives. 

Are you demanding I provide a source for something YOU'RE claiming?!? Scroll up, dum dum, I never said I knew one way or the other who could get SSN, but I'm pretty sure you at least have to have gov't ID, which I don't.

[myrkul]

....I think you broke him.

[cryptoanarchist]

If you have to fill out a W-2 its a shitty job to begin with, regardless of what they're paying you.

I get usually get contracted and never need to supply a SSN in the first place. Then the IRS has to prove that you have taxable income. Not very easy when they don't even know what you made in the first place. They don't have the manpower to spy on me 24/7.

Will you be entitled to claim social security when you reach age 70?

Of course not. Why would I want it? I don't take money from scumbags that they themselves robbed from others.

Hmm. Can you provide a source for that? I have never heard of an American who is not entitled to SS at 70 but I have to admit that its not something I ever looked into.

http://www.ask.com/answers/62035321/do-i-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-as-a-paroled-ex-felon

It appears that all you need to do is ask.

So right now you are not paying a penny.  But later, you get the benefit.  

Free-loader much?

I don't know or care what the legal masonic bullshit says. I'm not entitled to money from a program that I didn't support. I don't contract with the government AT ALL, so how could I pick it up?

Please provide a source.  I though any deadbeat could claim social security.  Even people who have been in jail all their lives.  

Are you demanding I provide a source for something YOU'RE claiming?!? Scroll up, dum dum, I never said I knew one way or the other who could get SSN, but I'm pretty sure you at least have to have gov't ID, which I don't.

You only said "entitled" to which I said "of course not". If you had said "legally entitled", I would have said what I said 3 quotes up. I know, you're confused.

[Hawker]

...snip...

You only said "entitled" to which I said "of course not". If you had said "legally entitled", I would have said what I said 3 quotes up. I know, you're confused.

So you are skipping contributions now.  And then you change your mind at age 70 and get payments out of the system.

Congratulations!  You have found a way to rip off people who work and pay their dues all their lives.  

[cryptoanarchist]

...snip...

You only said "entitled" to which I said "of course not". If you had said "legally entitled", I would have said what I said 3 quotes up. I know, you're confused.

So you are skipping contributions now.  And then you change your mind at age 70 and get payments out of the system.

Congratulations!  You have found a way to rip off people who work and pay their dues all their lives.  

fail

[Hawker]

...snip...

You only said "entitled" to which I said "of course not". If you had said "legally entitled", I would have said what I said 3 quotes up. I know, you're confused.

So you are skipping contributions now.  And then you change your mind at age 70 and get payments out of the system.

Congratulations!  You have found a way to rip off people who work and pay their dues all their lives.  

fail

No! You win.  You are not contributing and then you can claim.  What a clever guy you are!

[TheButterZone]

Because this anonymous "source" is absolute fact, right... do you also use Wikipedia as you prepare to file court briefs in pro per?

http://www.ask.com/answers/62035321/do-i-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-as-a-paroled-ex-felon

[Hawker]

Because this anonymous "source" is absolute fact, right...

http://www.ask.com/answers/62035321/do-i-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-as-a-paroled-ex-felon

If you have a source that says our beloved cryptoanarchist can't claim social security at 70, great.  If not, what are you trying to say here?

[TheButterZone]

Because this anonymous "source" is absolute fact, right...

http://www.ask.com/answers/62035321/do-i-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-as-a-paroled-ex-felon

If you have a source that says our beloved cryptoanarchist can't claim social security at 70, great.  If not, what are you trying to say here?

That you act like the internets are a perfect substitute for paid, or even pro-bono legal counsel... LOL ridiculous.

[Hawker]

Because this anonymous "source" is absolute fact, right...

http://www.ask.com/answers/62035321/do-i-qualify-for-social-security-benefits-as-a-paroled-ex-felon

If you have a source that says our beloved cryptoanarchist can't claim social security at 70, great.  If not, what are you trying to say here?

That you act like the internets are a perfect substitute for paid, or even pro-bono legal counsel... LOL ridiculous.

But you have no doubt that he is entitled to claim social security benefits after years of avoiding contributions.  That is not LOL ridiculous at all is it. 

Complaining that the source is not your standard but that data is correct is a stupid point.  Try to make an intelligent point. 

[TheButterZone]

YOU make the extraordinary claims, so it's up to YOU to provide at the very least ordinary, not random internet BS, proof. Show us a US Supreme Court ruling, an appellate court ruling, sworn congressional testimony that was recorded or transcribed by CSPAN or another official source, ANYTHING on any government website, or fall on your sword of BS, NOT TRUTH.

I have every doubt of what YOU claim is reality, since you seem to do nothing but substitute your own. Just because someone doubts your bloody fantasies and bullshit "proof" does not mean they are certain of, or are arguing, a fucking thing, other than that you are full of unsubstantiated BS.

[unclemantis]

I get a lot of income from overseas, and as much I think I should be allowed to Opt-Out of Social Security and receive a return of all I have paid in, even if it's a rollover to a Roth IRA of my choice. It's my cash and I hate it that the Government gets to force me to invest in Social Security, I should have the choice.

Sign this petition, let's see if it works:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/allow-citizens-opt-out-social-security-taxes-and-return-them-all-money-paid-upon-opt-out/KLcN0850

Link doesn't work. It gets redirected to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-citizens-opt-out-social-security-taxes-and-return-them-all-money-paid-upon-opt-out/KLcN0850

and displays the following

Thanks for your interest in We the People, a new tool on WhiteHouse.gov that allows all Americans to ask the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country.

The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold.

While you can't sign this petition, there may be other petitions on We the People on a similar issue that you'd like to add your name to. Or, you can create your own petition.

Create a petition

[myrkul]

Thanks for your interest in We the People, a new tool on WhiteHouse.gov that allows all Americans to ask the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country.

The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold.

Not that they would have listened, anyway, or Marijuana would be legal by now.