[SpecialOlympian]

"Webster's Dictionary Defines Social Security benefits as-

Feel owned yet, SpecialOlympian?"

-Wa1on, on Politicsforum.org. July 9th, 2023

Yeah Social Security isn't enough. It's also publicly funded, and not workers getting a larger share of the profit they create for private business. What's your fucking point? How many shareholders' dicks do you plan to suck in this thread?

Social Security is funded by taxes your employer collects on behalf of the IRS. It's not you getting a share of the value you create for shareholders.

It's the government stepping in to subsidize the fact that your employer isn't paying you enough to retire comfortably, because our current economic system is untenable for a large number of workers.

[SpecialOlympian]

Just because I think you're stupid enough to need this explanation:

A pension is funded by an employer. It is setting aside a portion of profits to invest and pay out to retired employees as they work their way through their life.

Social Security is a government run program. Funded by the taxes you pay as an American Citizen who earned Income in the United States, and which are deducted from your paycheck by your employer's Payroll person. Your employer could give you $!0,000/hour, it doesn't matter. That's what they deduct from your pay, hold, and then transfer to the IRS. Not what they personally pay to the IRS.

I suggest you educate yourself instead of finding ways to justify being underpaid.

Also you don't even contribute to Social Security after you earn more than $160,200 a year. That's the limit. Your income continues to be taxed, but none of it goes to SS after that amount. Tax the hell out of every six digit earner and increase payments to Social Security recipients.

[SpecialOlympian]

Do not come at me with money shit you little bitch. I am in communion with the Almighty Dollar and I vibe with the Internal Revenue Code.

You don't even understand the ways your employer is ripping you off. In your lack of understanding you worship them and believe it is the natural and right order of the universe.

And when you see any criticism of a boot tickling the back of your throat, you cover over those thoughts with paper mache. You don't understand, but want to forget and oversimplify everything because you want to suck capitalist/shareholder dick.

You basically went at an actual Wizard with a fockin’ $15 magic trick you bought at the mall magic shop.

[wat0n]

A pension doesn't cease to be a pension just because you call it something else.

Social Security is obviously a pension. One in which you pay for current pensioners expect the next generation to fund yours.

[SpecialOlympian]

A pension is funded by an employer. It is paid for by the profits of the company and not deducted from your paycheck. Social Security is funded by the government through your taxes, deducted from your paycheck.

What part of this is hard for you to understand?

Also you are deflecting because you realize how much of a bitch you are to your employer. Why are you arguing with me over what constitutes your retirement instead of asking your employer for more of the value you create for them?

[SpecialOlympian]

Come at the guy you call "The Money Guy" with questions over money. Genius move by a genius poster.

I'm not even mocking your lack of understanding of money. You don't need to understand shit, you just need to be compensated fairly for the value you contribute to your employer. And for some reason you think you don't deserve some of that?

I'm legitimately asking why you don't think you deserve more. Your argument is, "I am a worker and I should eat shit every day of my life; I love the current hierarchy of having shit on the menu all day ever day."

[wat0n]

A pension is funded by an employer. It is paid for by the profits of the company and not deducted from your paycheck. Social Security is funded by the government through your taxes, deducted from your paycheck.

What part of this is hard for you to understand?

And because of that, Social Security is a government pension system.

And no, I don't mean "pension system" in the same way an accounting assistant like yourself does.

Also you are deflecting because you realize how much of a bitch you are to your employer. Why are you arguing with me over what constitutes your retirement instead of asking your employer for more of the value you create for them?

Nobody forces to keep you working, just don't expect to get a full Social Security pension if you don't contribute.

[Tainari88]

Come at the guy you call "The Money Guy" with questions over money. Genius move by a genius poster.

I'm not even mocking your lack of understanding of money. You don't need to understand shit, you just need to be compensated fairly for the value you contribute to your employer. And for some reason you think you don't deserve some of that?

I'm legitimately asking why you don't think you deserve more. Your argument is, "I am a worker and I should eat shit every day of my life; I love the current hierarchy of having shit on the menu all day ever day."

SO, Wat0n loves being contrarian and always identifying with some millionaire powerful type. Even though he needs to be negotiating all the time. He does not really want to think he is a working class guy eh....

He is above the fray. Or something. He is not George Carlin realizing what the system is about with not much sugarcoating. He has a ways to go to understand that.

[wat0n]

One can't beat population ageing, unfortunately.

The Social Security numbers simply don't add up long term if something doesn't give in. It is necessary, based on population ageing, to do at least one of the following:

1) Raise taxes
2) Raise the retirement age
3) Lower the pension entitlement

I think raising taxes is the easiest way to go about it, with retiring later the second easiest thing to do. Chances are both will be necessary to some extent.

Fortunately, the US does have room to raise taxes. It doesn't even collect a federal VAT, which is a cash cow and used in all other developed countries with a larger welfare state. A 10% federal VAT rate has a fair chance of solving most of the problem.

Raising taxes on the upper classes and particularly removing the income cap on the FICA tax, which isn't something I am against anyway, would obviously help but this alone won't solve the problem. The fiscal gap is just going to be too damn large.

That means we get to consume less. It means all of us basically have to accept giving the feds a part of our consumption in exchange for making sure Social Security and Medicare are funded. I think it makes sense, but it's just me - even if it means I get to have a lower ability to enjoy life, the alternative of an unstoppable pension crisis 20 or 30 years from now is way worse in my book.

And if it also means I will need to work for longer, so be it. I'd still prefer that over the alternative. I'd very much have that, over forced to work longer anyway because all the retirement payments (Social Security, private pensions, 403(b)/401(k), other savings, etc) just isn't enough for holding up due to lack of Social Security funds.

[Steve_American]

A pension is funded by an employer. It is paid for by the profits of the company and not deducted from your paycheck. Social Security is funded by the government through your taxes, deducted from your paycheck.

What part of this is hard for you to understand?

Also you are deflecting because you realize how much of a bitch you are to your employer. Why are you arguing with me over what constitutes your retirement instead of asking your employer for more of the value you create for them?

AFAIK, the French in the streets are demanding that their "pension" not be changed to make them work 2 more years, and always die having received 2 fewer years of payments.
Also, AFAIK, this pension is a Fr. Gov. program.

So, in the media some Gov. programs are called "pensions".

However, I do agree with your main point. France can tax the rich more to fund the pensions. Or, it can change the EU/EZ rules to let it borrow to pay them.

MMTers have been saying since before 1998, that the euro will be a disaster. They have been proven right. After the GFC/2008 Europe didn't recover. It was still seeing 25% youth unemployment in some nations in 2019. This is a sign of the disaster. The problem is baked into the system. It was designed by Neoliberals to be neoliberal. But, neoliberalism is a false theory based on a bunch of false logical premises. No economy works the way the theory says economies work. None.
. . So, France must either cut pensions or increase taxes on the rich.
. . But, also Europe can't deficit spend to replace euros that are saved and not spent and euros that leave the EZ to import stuff, if the EZ has a net trade deficit as a whole.
. . Also, the ECB is not a true central bank if it obeys the rules. Since 2011 it has not followed the rules and bought nations bonds to keep yields down. Now, the European Commision is saying it will start enforcing the rules again soon. This will be impossible because the rules are only good in the fantasy economy that neoliberals invented with their theory. In the real economies of Europe, these rules are totally unworkable. All MMTers saw this way back before 1998. The problems they listed are the problems that manifested themselves in 2008 with the 1st crisis. And these problems are still there, papered over to some extent by the ECB breaking the rules.
.

[Tainari88]

One can't beat population ageing, unfortunately.

The Social Security numbers simply don't add up long term if something doesn't give in. It is necessary, based on population ageing, to do at least one of the following:

1) Raise taxes
2) Raise the retirement age
3) Lower the pension entitlement

I think raising taxes is the easiest way to go about it, with retiring later the second easiest thing to do. Chances are both will be necessary to some extent.

Fortunately, the US does have room to raise taxes. It doesn't even collect a federal VAT, which is a cash cow and used in all other developed countries with a larger welfare state. A 10% federal VAT rate has a fair chance of solving most of the problem.

Raising taxes on the upper classes and particularly removing the income cap on the FICA tax, which isn't something I am against anyway, would obviously help but this alone won't solve the problem. The fiscal gap is just going to be too damn large.

That means we get to consume less. It means all of us basically have to accept giving the feds a part of our consumption in exchange for making sure Social Security and Medicare are funded. I think it makes sense, but it's just me - even if it means I get to have a lower ability to enjoy life, the alternative of an unstoppable pension crisis 20 or 30 years from now is way worse in my book.

And if it also means I will need to work for longer, so be it. I'd still prefer that over the alternative. I'd very much have that, over forced to work longer anyway because all the retirement payments (Social Security, private pensions, 403(b)/401(k), other savings, etc) just isn't enough for holding up due to lack of Social Security funds.

Raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations and banks. Every time Wall Street trades tax them to death. That is how you fix it. And if the stock market runs around betting on people going bankrupt and losing their houses? Take over all the houses by banks and fund remodels by taxing the uber-rich and go and have people repair the homes and hand over the damn keys to homeless people and people who work but can't afford anything. End of the problem.

But no, sacred private property. Of the banks and profits. Fuck that premise. It is more important to house people and keep people healthy and be able to contribute to society. Poverty and not being able to heat your home in the winter should not be the destiny of a worker who put in 55 years of work and pays taxes to the state to get some pension that barely works for covering their grocery bill and light bill. That is not just. The corporations keep getting more money and more money but never have to give security to the workers they dumped to go and invest in the PRC, and in Malaysia, and so on. It is foolish crap. Close every avenue of escape internationally for these vultures.

[wat0n]

Raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations and banks. Every time Wall Street trades tax them to death. That is how you fix it. And if the stock market runs around betting on people going bankrupt and losing their houses? Take over all the houses by banks and fund remodels by taxing the uber-rich and go and have people repair the homes and hand over the damn keys to homeless people and people who work but can't afford anything. End of the problem.

But no, sacred private property. Of the banks and profits. Fuck that premise. It is more important to house people and keep people healthy and be able to contribute to society. Poverty and not being able to heat your home in the winter should not be the destiny of a worker who put in 55 years of work and pays taxes to the state to get some pension that barely works for covering their grocery bill and light bill. That is not just. The corporations keep getting more money and more money but never have to give security to the workers they dumped to go and invest in the PRC, and in Malaysia, and so on. It is foolish crap. Close every avenue of escape internationally for these vultures.

Even doing that, just confiscating all the wealth of the top 1%, wouldn't cut it. It's estimated to be at $45.9 trillion while the funding gap for SS and Medicare over the remainder of the century stands at $75 trillion. We'll all have to foot the bill in one way or another, the only question is who'll pay a larger cost.

[Tainari88]

Even doing that, just confiscating all the wealth of the top 1%, wouldn't cut it. It's estimated to be at $45.9 trillion while the funding gap for SS and Medicare over the remainder of the century stands at $75 trillion. We'll all have to foot the bill in one way or another, the only question is who'll pay a larger cost.

There are economic models of all sorts. The reality is that all models state that if you don't cope with clean water, clean energy and clean earth and clean air and you do not take those mountains of trash and you don't recycle everything you can down to the last tiny bit of metal and plastic and compress it all and BUILD on it, and you take every last drop of fertilizer that is healthy and you don't deal with plants and being efficient at calculating how you can grow things efficiently and how to store and solar based energy and recycling everything to the maximum degree? You will not have a damn chance.

But the vultures got to go...I do not cry for any of them. Besides that is not true Wat0n. All you need to do is pool all the resources and start calculating based on what is reasonable. They did that with the McDonald's corporation. They make money being the world's biggest landlord. It is not really getting rich selling Big Macs. They calculated that if they distributed the profits for McDonald's equitably and well? All the employees would have living wages and a lot of benefits and would work less hours on top of that. Total security for those industry workers. They could live middle class lives just doing that. If you break down all the industries with a lot of worldwide workers and break it down equitably? You get to live decently. Worldwide.

Elon Musk lives in a 50k comfortable house that is decent and not expensive. People need to aspire to that stuff Wat0n. People have to have decent standards and peace. There is enough trash, enough discarded material that can be reused for building materials for every family that needs a decent home with good insulation, good ventilation and good quality of life. Tiny homes, recycled homes, Earthbags, adobe homes from recycled materials, clay, straw, and every material in between, well planned and executed it can happen!

Tons of investment not in instruments of war and death but in cleaning air, cleaning water with massive water treatment plants that benefit nature. It is out there. I have studied it for years and years. You would be surprised how creative the world we live in is. It can happen. It is all being held back by one thing. GREED and lack of political will. You have to remove those two or you will never solve a damn thing.

It is almost BIBLICAL. A big horrible DEMON is in the way. GREED. Got to get rid of that problem. It is the reason there is pollution, nuclear bomb threats and war materials being produced en masse. It is the reason there is poverty, homes being foreclosed on, and homeless families, unemployed people and hunger and lack of basic needs being met like kids dying of diarrhea. That has to go.

Get rid of the greed. Profit motive crap is not going to solve a crisis of epic proportions. What will work is a huge cooperation plan between dozens of nations to the point of 195 nations doing inventories and planning exchanges and saying, how much do we have here to give and recycle and do so that we can solve these enormous problems. Send the experts from x nation and y nation. Get their asses over here. SOLVE this OBSTACLE.

That is how that is done. Not selfish and indifferent crap and a bunch of elitists fleeing to hide behind walls full of barbed wire fences and security guards with machine guns. That is not going to work.

The Amish do not want any part of the modern world Wat0n. It is corrupt and evil for them. And they are right about that. But the people living outside the Amish community polluted the land and did the corrupt thing and the Amish share air, water, and earth with the corrupt ones they have never shared their lives with. But they are connected to the corrupt ones. How? By breathing, drinking, eating, and being human. All of us are one. The actions of the outsiders and the ones outside our borders are supposedly some remote and distant people.

They are not. Everything they do affects the whole. All are one. Got to accept that the solution is also going to be ALL ARE ONE and together. Fight for the unity. And not the separation. Because it might depend on that mindset to not go extinct.

[wat0n]

@Tainari88 some of what you're saying will happen. But it won't be limited to just Musk living more like a middle class American, you know?

If the idea will be to take care of the old, we'll all have to foot the bill in one way or another. That's the big message from the projections by the US Treasury itself: As population ages, the current Social Security and Medicare funds won't be enough. Taxes will definitely go up if we want to keep those two entitlements as they are.

The rich will obviously foot a larger bill, but they won't be the only ones.

The good thing, though, is that the US still has time to change course. And that the US isn't Europe, where taxation is already very high yet some countries (e.g. Belgium) are in even worse shape than the US.

[SpecialOlympian]

And because of that, Social Security is a government pension system.

And no, I don't mean "pension system" in the same way an accounting assistant like yourself does.

"Uh, actually I don't mean it in the way a professional who studies and actively works in the field means it, I mean it in the stupid way."

Social Security is a fucking insurance, not a pension you dunce. The fucking name of the program is OASDI, or the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. For retirees it's closer to an annuity than a pension. Again, pensions are funded by the profits of a private enterprise, profits specifically set aside for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders.

SO, Wat0n loves being contrarian and always identifying with some millionaire powerful type. Even though he needs to be negotiating all the time. He does not really want to think he is a working class guy eh....

Mmmm, boot. Nummy nummy boot.

[Steve_American]

Even doing that, just confiscating all the wealth of the top 1%, wouldn't cut it. It's estimated to be at $45.9 trillion while the funding gap for SS and Medicare over the remainder of the century stands at $75 trillion. We'll all have to foot the bill in one way or another, the only question is who'll pay a larger cost.

Again, you re conflating wealth with future income.

Take a median income 30 y.o. worker. Compare his current net wealth with his projected total after tax income over the next 35 years. Which is more? How much more?

I'd bet his projected income is at least 5 times his current net wealth.
.

[wat0n]

"Uh, actually I don't mean it in the way a professional who studies and actively works in the field means it, I mean it in the stupid way."

Except that you don't work in anything or you wouldn't be saying as stupid. Did you even finish high school?

Social Security is a fucking insurance, not a pension you dunce. The fucking name of the program is OASDI, or the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. For retirees it's closer to an annuity than a pension. Again, pensions are funded by the profits of a private enterprise, profits specifically set aside for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders.

A pension doesn't cease to be a pension just because you don't call it a pension you moron

A pension (/ˈpɛnʃən/; from Latin pensiō 'payment') is a fund into which a sum of money is added during an employee's employment years and from which payments are drawn to support the person's retirement from work in the form of periodic payments. A pension may be a "defined benefit plan", where a fixed sum is paid regularly to a person, or a "defined contribution plan", under which a fixed sum is invested that then becomes available at retirement age.[1] Pensions should not be confused with severance pay; the former is usually paid in regular amounts for life after retirement, while the latter is typically paid as a fixed amount after involuntary termination of employment before retirement.

The terms "retirement plan" and "superannuation" tend to refer to a pension granted upon retirement of the individual.[2] Retirement plans may be set up by employers, insurance companies, the government, or other institutions such as employer associations or trade unions. Called retirement plans in the United States, they are commonly known as pension schemes in the United Kingdom and Ireland and superannuation plans (or super[3]) in Australia and New Zealand. Retirement pensions are typically in the form of a guaranteed life annuity, thus insuring against the risk of longevity.

A pension created by an employer for the benefit of an employee is commonly referred to as an occupational or employer pension. Labor unions, the government, or other organizations may also fund pensions. Occupational pensions are a form of deferred compensation, usually advantageous to employee and employer for tax reasons. Many pensions also contain an additional insurance aspect, since they often will pay benefits to survivors or disabled beneficiaries. Other vehicles (certain lottery payouts, for example, or an annuity) may provide a similar stream of payments.

The common use of the term pension is to describe the payments a person receives upon retirement, usually under pre-determined legal or contractual terms. A recipient of a retirement pension is known as a pensioner or retiree.

...

Social and state pensions

Many countries have created funds for their citizens and residents to provide income when they retire (or in some cases become disabled). Typically this requires payments throughout the citizen's working life in order to qualify for benefits later on. A basic state pension is a "contribution based" benefit, and depends on an individual's contribution history. For examples, see National Insurance in the UK, or Social Security in the United States of America.

Many countries have also put in place a "social pension". These are regular, tax-funded non-contributory cash transfers paid to older people. Over 80 countries have social pensions.[4] Some are universal benefits, given to all older people regardless of income, assets or employment record. Examples of universal pensions include New Zealand Superannuation[5] and the Basic Retirement Pension of Mauritius.[6] Most social pensions, though, are means-tested, such as Supplemental Security Income in the United States of America or the "older person's grant" in South Africa.[7]

Mmmm, boot. Nummy nummy boot.

Great argument! Nobody forces you to work but you are expected to contribute to the pension system if you want a pension. What's so hard to understand? Even you should get it.

@Steve_American and you're still ignoring how wealth is calculated, particularly where does that $45 trillion figure comes from. Maybe you could learn finance along with SO when he finishes high school.

[Steve_American]

@wat0n you wrote, "@Steve_American and you're still ignoring how wealth is calculated, particularly where does that $45 trillion figure comes from. Maybe you could learn finance along with SO when he finishes high school."

Leaving aside your insulting language, we are back to this disagreement. You are wrong, and here is why.

1] In order for that infinite series of additions to the "net wealth" of the rich to converge to a finite number, each term must be less than the previous term. You already agreed that this is mathematically necessary.
2] This assumption is obviously not true. The rich typically see their incomes increase year after year.
3] So, the system you think should be used has their incomes dropping when in reality their incomes normally increase.
4] Therefore, that system is meaningless. It bears no relation to reality.

So, again, I don't give a shit about some stupid neoliberal system to calculate some number for the net worth of the entire top 1% of rich people in America. I don't accept much that neoliberalism teaches. This number is just another example of how stupid neoliberalism is, at least if it claims to be talking about reality. There is zero reality in that number.

Besides which, you have not yet provided a link to a site that makes it clear that the system, you say is used, is the one being used in the sources you have linked to that give a $45T figure.
.

[wat0n]

@Steve_American I already showed you the proof of the perpetual present value formula in this very thread.

Did you understand it?

[Steve_American]

@Steve_American I already showed you the proof of the perpetual present value formula in this very thread.

Did you understand it?

Yes, you did show me that.

But, that doesn't mean that the other sources used that system to calculate that $45T figure.

And, I just explained why assuming that the increase in net wealth of the top 1% decreases each year is just not true. In fact, your recent post spoke about how the rich got a lot richer last year. This proves that they don't get richer at a declining rate.
So, garbage in, garbage out.
Ant figure calculated in that way has garbage in, and so will have garbage out. You can't claim to have any sort of final figure if all of the numbers being added together to get it are fictious.

So, to answer your question; no, I didn't understand why anyone would think that system would give an accurate final number.
.