re: Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security

quote:

---

To date, recipients have invested $2.9 trillion more than has been paid out.

---

Irrelevant. You're conflating again.

Look at the individual level data, which is actually relevant, and which I posted.

Plenty of people receive more SS than what they paid in, which makes SS a normal welfare program by your own definition.

Trying to discuss the "trust fund" is dishonest and non-relevant, for reasons I already explained (unlinking the individual debt concept from SS taxes)

quote:

---

Irrelevant. You're conflating again.

---

No.
I specifically relegated my statement to the present. In 10 years time, you might be able to make the case that Social Security (if unamended) would convert from a benefit to the federal government to a benefit of the individual recipients. But you cannot make that case now, in part, because you and I both know Social Security will be amended in that interim. Calling that program "welfare" is ridiculous.

quote:

---

Plenty of people receive more SS than what they paid in

---

Now you're conflating. It's not a matter of "pay in." It is a matter of promissory ROI on a federal debt obligation. If I lend the government money through treasury issues, I will eventually receive more than I paid in. That doesn't make treasuries "welfare."

quote:

---

In 10 years time, you might be able to make the case that Social Security (if unamended) would convert from a benefit to the federal government to a benefit of the individual recipients.

---

That's literally not possible without a legislative change. The scheme is what it is today and will remain the same in the future (without legislative change).

Again, you're conflating.

quote:

---

But you cannot make that case now, in part, because you and I both know Social Security will be amended in that interim.

---

Again, this makes no logical sense. If SS is amended, then we can discuss its nature in that state. We are discussing SS today, ITT.

quote:

---

Calling that program "welfare" is ridiculous.

---

People paying taxes to a public agency that are then redistributed to third parties by that agency. In what way is that not welfare?

That describes SNAP, Section 8, Medicaid, etc.

The dishonesty with SS is pretending that there is some personal connection both to those taxes going out and the redistributed benefits coming in. That never existed, despite the marketing.

quote:

---

People paying taxes to a public agency that are then redistributed to third parties by that agency. In what way is that not welfare?

---

Is that a reference to disability paid through Social Security?

quote:

---

That's how SS payments work.

---

Then, no, it isn't. Nor has it ever been since inception.

quote:

---

Per Gemini:

quote:
When Social Security began, the full retirement age was 65, while the average life expectancy was significantly lower—around 61 for men and 65 for women in 1935. This meant the retirement age was close to or even above the average life expectancy, particularly for men, with a large percentage of the population likely unable to receive benefits.

---

Average life expectancy is itself a skewed number since it mixes all deaths at all ages into the average including infant mortality, women dying in child birth, young men dying in war and accidents, etc. People who make it to 50 tend to live way past that average both today and in the 1930's.

If you don't have your own business and retirement, keeping or finding a job from 65 on is a rare event.

SS has really shitty ROI because the interest paid on the "Trust Fund" is almost always below the rate of inflation.

quote:

---

The current full retirement age for Social Security benefits is 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later.

---

Had 15% of your income been invested in SPY stock index for 40 years, your first $1000 "contribution" would now be about $36,000. At the typical Trust Fund ROI, it would be about $2000 to $3000.

Your first $1000 in 1985 in constant dollars would be >$3,000 today. Quite a skim they got going there.

With average life expectancy as it is, most people receive more in SS benefits than they've paid in over the course of their careers. This happens at a younger age for low income workers, those who start drawing on it at 62, and married couples.

So, yes in the first several years it is your contributions you are drawing from. After that it is a pure welfare program paid for by those currently employed AND/OR gov't taking on debt.

I say, as it phases out, let retirees take out their calculated contributions. End the rest.