Opting out of Social Security

[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. 

[1713292044]

1713292044

[1713292044]

1713292044

[1713292044]

1713292044

[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.