Point to Social Security

[A18]

What's the point to having government give you your own money back?

[MODU]

For all of it's flaws, there is some benefit to having social security.  We all know that people cannot always be trusted with their money.  By the government holding onto a small percentage of your income, when you reach retirement age, there will still be funds available for you to pay your basic bills, even if you were broke to begin with.  However, if there wasn't social security, you'd have a whole bunch of people who are broke and need money to survive off of leeching more funds away from the government, resulting in us paying more taxes to support them.  

[A18]

Welfare reform; we should have the same policy towards everyone.

I seriously think that would cost a lot less than Social Security.

[A18]

Society shouldn't use government for things like this; same problem as health care.

If government is responsible for paying my health bills, can it tell me not to smoke?

[MODU]

That is why I am in favor of privatizing protions of Social Security.  I have better ways to invest in my future than what the Government can do with my funds.  However, I am financially responsible.  Not everyone is, so I would like to see some degree of requirement for individuals to be eligible for participating in the privatization.  I don't need Joe Drug-user spending his portion to get high, and then having me being taxed to support him.

[A18]

I thought welfare reform only allowed you to stay on for a month or so?

[MODU]

They provide monthly benefits, but not limited to just one months worth of service.

[Nym90]

It all depends on your values. MODU's point, which I agree with, is that as long as you accept the premise that society has an obligation to, at least to some extent, take care of the less fortunate, than social security is a more cost effective way to do it in the long run than just letting people use the money on whatever they want to and then having to clean up the mess later. Even if you don't believe in this moral obligation, you could still argue that the harm to society caused by people being destitute and poor in old age is still worse than the cost of social security.

If you don't believe that there is any societal obligation to help the less fortunate, and don't believe that there are any other costs associated with poverty (crime, etc.) then of course you would oppose social security.

Or if you believe that the rights of the individual trump any and all rights that may belong to society collectively, you would oppose it.

So hopefully that answers your question about whether or not there is any point to social security. There certainly is, for those who may hold differing moral views or a different perspective on the cost/benefit aspects of it.

[A18]

Yeah, but I mean you have to give an excuse each time you want benefits, right?

[MODU]

I think you are confusing Welfare with Social Security.  Social Security is for those of retirement age.  Welfare is for the poor.  We are discussing Social Security, Philip.  You don't need to be poor to receive it . . . just old and formerly employed.

[A18]

I know. You said this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said it shouldn't be a problem because you can't get endless welfare.

[MODU]

Ah, gotcha.  You confused me there.  

[zachman]

You don't need to be poor to receive it . . . just old and formerly employed.

Or disabled. You can get early Social Security checks if you are disabled.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The government doesn't just give you your own money back...the amount of money you get from Social Security has very little relationship to the total amount of money you put in.  

As a general rule, wealthy people get more in social security than working class people, but it is quite a bit more complicated.  Social security currently rewards people who make a large amount of money in a just a couple years of work, and penalizes people who make a constant salary but work hard for their entire lives.