Opting out of Social Security

[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.

[1714902801]

1714902801

[1714902801]

1714902801

[1714902801]

1714902801

[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.