I agree with almost everything you have said in the past few posts.
Generosity should be voluntarily, not compulsory.
That impression that I get is that the people who oppose SS are still a very small minority from the younger generation, while the bulk of the older generation benefit and gain from it.
On the surface this gives an impression of the younger generation being selfish and not caring for the needy, but I know it's more than that.
I'm not sure if you have looked at President Obama's budget, but it is absurd. The numbers are based on a "best case" scenario and even that is a stretch. Governments are like vines, if left unrestrained, they grown wildly in all directions. They need a good pruning every now and again.
Now, as far as the generosity is concerned with helping other nations, I am okay with that. However, I also agree that Americans should take care of Americans first, but not through programs like this. Financial prosperity comes through financial freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, my government has meddled with our economic system too much and has used it's tax revenue to grow itself to unsustainable heights.
SS is not advertised as an investment "scheme," although it should be. It closely resembles a Ponzi Scheme, aka Pyramid Scheme. America knows that there is a major problem with SS, but most are either too afraid to think rationally, or too apathetic to want to do anything about it.
There is a growing number of young people, like myself, who are unwilling to sit by idly and let this happen. Broken systems need to be fixed, or it will blow up in our face.
I am happy to respond to your questions dsarosh. It is my pleasure. I'm not sure how it is advertised in your country, but SS is not a charitable program. It was originally intended to be a safety net, a supplemental to the pensions your company would supply you in retirement. However, it has created an entitlement mentality that just doesn't make sense. The numbers do not add up.
The idea of SS assumes there are more workers than retirees. This was true then, but will not be true soon.
When looking at things like Social Securityy from a non-American perspective one gets the feeling that it's something nice and generous to do. I have heard about this in the past and, to be honest, I never got the feeling that even 5% of the people would get back all the money they put into SS.
I thought it was designed such that 100 people pay into it so that the money can be used to taken care of those 5% or 15% people who really, truly needit.
BTW, I also have to add that your country is spending trillions upon trillions of your money in about 50 countries around the world from Pakistan to Korea, and I'm guessing some of that money comes from your taxes.
I think it is better Americans spend their own money on their own land and take care of their own countrymen and keep america rich and prosperous.
The latest figures are that USA has 700 military bases in 130 different countries across the globe. And i think your taxes pay for thes
To address your confusion, let me say, I too am confused why more people do not do this. In reference to my friend, he will be doing it shortly. He has to bulk up his emergency fund first. To his credit, he has recently converted from his HIGH consumption lifestyle, to a smarter savings and investment perspective.
Here's the main point of the video though, it is not to address my friend's specific situation. Rather, it is to point out that our MANDATORY Social Security system is not only a failure of epic proportions, but there are superior ways to handle retirement funding.
To give you a little insight into our culture, SS has created a "someone else will take care of me" mentality, shifting our personal responsibility and consequences to the government through central planning. America feels entitled, so when you see that America's savings rate is -2%, you know why. My fellow Americans as a whole spend WAY TOO MUCH instead of saving too much.
I think the answer is that people over extend their lifestyle according to how much they earn. They don't use the money to save, rather they use to buy and spend more.
If it were so easy to make 2.7 million dollars by only saving 6.4% of his salary, your friend should be doing it right now by spending less and saving more.
I'm not actually from USA. I just find some of the stuff interesting sometimes.
From a neutral perspective, I thought things like Paying into Social Security were associated with 'kindness', charity, etc, etc. I.E. Americans pay 12% of their earnings to keep America rich as a country in general. So I thought this was a pretty good and generous thing to do.
And I do think that Americans spend more than they save. I see my friends do it and it seriously shocks me.
Secondly, you ask why don't they use the left over amount to fund their retirements? Answer: They do. They fund ROTHs, 401ks, and other investment vehicles to do this, but it is VOLUNTARY. Social Security is mandatory and the numbers prove it isn't sustainable. More money will be coming out of the SS fund beginning in 2016, meaning all of us who are young are paying for something they will never get.
Lastly, are you arguing for Social Security by stating that if we didn't have it people would just spend the money now and never have it to invest it later? If that is so, I can't take you seriously. Let's assume you are right and everyone spends all their money now. How is that worse than giving it to the government. The worst of my plan allows people to have some fun with their money before it's wasted. With the government, you always pay and get nothing. How is that better?
Thank you dsrosh for your response. It allows me to clarify some other misconceptions. The first being that Americans do not receive 87.6% because we lose 1.45% on Medicare, and depending on how much you make anywhere from 15%-35% Federal Income Tax. Then there is state taxes which, in my state have increased to another 1%-9.3% and also SUI/SDI which is another 1%. It's easy to see how we only have 69.05% at best and 40.85% at worst.
Thanks for the replies, it's appreciated.
I agree with almost everything you have said in the past few posts.
Generosity should be voluntarily, not compulsory.
That impression that I get is that the people who oppose SS are still a very small minority from the younger generation, while the bulk of the older generation benefit and gain from it.
On the surface this gives an impression of the younger generation being selfish and not caring for the needy, but I know it's more than that.
dsarosh 2 years ago
I'm not sure if you have looked at President Obama's budget, but it is absurd. The numbers are based on a "best case" scenario and even that is a stretch. Governments are like vines, if left unrestrained, they grown wildly in all directions. They need a good pruning every now and again.
rusty159753 2 years ago
Now, as far as the generosity is concerned with helping other nations, I am okay with that. However, I also agree that Americans should take care of Americans first, but not through programs like this. Financial prosperity comes through financial freedoms and liberties. Unfortunately, my government has meddled with our economic system too much and has used it's tax revenue to grow itself to unsustainable heights.
rusty159753 2 years ago
SS is not advertised as an investment "scheme," although it should be. It closely resembles a Ponzi Scheme, aka Pyramid Scheme. America knows that there is a major problem with SS, but most are either too afraid to think rationally, or too apathetic to want to do anything about it.
There is a growing number of young people, like myself, who are unwilling to sit by idly and let this happen. Broken systems need to be fixed, or it will blow up in our face.
rusty159753 2 years ago
I am happy to respond to your questions dsarosh. It is my pleasure. I'm not sure how it is advertised in your country, but SS is not a charitable program. It was originally intended to be a safety net, a supplemental to the pensions your company would supply you in retirement. However, it has created an entitlement mentality that just doesn't make sense. The numbers do not add up.
The idea of SS assumes there are more workers than retirees. This was true then, but will not be true soon.
rusty159753 2 years ago
Hi Rusty,
Thanks for the replies,it helps a lot.
When looking at things like Social Securityy from a non-American perspective one gets the feeling that it's something nice and generous to do. I have heard about this in the past and, to be honest, I never got the feeling that even 5% of the people would get back all the money they put into SS.
I thought it was designed such that 100 people pay into it so that the money can be used to taken care of those 5% or 15% people who really, truly needit.
dsarosh 2 years ago
Just to clear my misconceptions, how is SS advertised in USA?
Is it advertised as a "investment scheme" in which you pay money for 40 years and you get back all that money + more after retirement?
Or is it advertised as a program where everyone pays 12% and that money is used to help the people who need it most?
I never thought about SS as a service where people put money in and expected to get any of it back.
I always thought about it as something you pay into and hope your money is used to
dsarosh 2 years ago
BTW, I also have to add that your country is spending trillions upon trillions of your money in about 50 countries around the world from Pakistan to Korea, and I'm guessing some of that money comes from your taxes.
I think it is better Americans spend their own money on their own land and take care of their own countrymen and keep america rich and prosperous.
The latest figures are that USA has 700 military bases in 130 different countries across the globe. And i think your taxes pay for thes
dsarosh 2 years ago
To address your confusion, let me say, I too am confused why more people do not do this. In reference to my friend, he will be doing it shortly. He has to bulk up his emergency fund first. To his credit, he has recently converted from his HIGH consumption lifestyle, to a smarter savings and investment perspective.
rusty159753 2 years ago
Here's the main point of the video though, it is not to address my friend's specific situation. Rather, it is to point out that our MANDATORY Social Security system is not only a failure of epic proportions, but there are superior ways to handle retirement funding.
rusty159753 2 years ago
To give you a little insight into our culture, SS has created a "someone else will take care of me" mentality, shifting our personal responsibility and consequences to the government through central planning. America feels entitled, so when you see that America's savings rate is -2%, you know why. My fellow Americans as a whole spend WAY TOO MUCH instead of saving too much.
rusty159753 2 years ago
What confused me most about your video is this:
If by saving only 12.6% of his salary your friend can make 5.2 million dollars by his retirement age, why on earth isn't he doint that already?
You say that Americans only get between 70% to 40% of their salaries? Correct?
Well, even if they saved 5% of this they would make 2.7 millions dollars. So why aren't they doing it?
dsarosh 2 years ago
I think the answer is that people over extend their lifestyle according to how much they earn. They don't use the money to save, rather they use to buy and spend more.
If it were so easy to make 2.7 million dollars by only saving 6.4% of his salary, your friend should be doing it right now by spending less and saving more.
dsarosh 2 years ago
Thanks for the replies,
I'm not actually from USA. I just find some of the stuff interesting sometimes.
From a neutral perspective, I thought things like Paying into Social Security were associated with 'kindness', charity, etc, etc. I.E. Americans pay 12% of their earnings to keep America rich as a country in general. So I thought this was a pretty good and generous thing to do.
And I do think that Americans spend more than they save. I see my friends do it and it seriously shocks me.
dsarosh 2 years ago
Secondly, you ask why don't they use the left over amount to fund their retirements? Answer: They do. They fund ROTHs, 401ks, and other investment vehicles to do this, but it is VOLUNTARY. Social Security is mandatory and the numbers prove it isn't sustainable. More money will be coming out of the SS fund beginning in 2016, meaning all of us who are young are paying for something they will never get.
rusty159753 2 years ago
Lastly, are you arguing for Social Security by stating that if we didn't have it people would just spend the money now and never have it to invest it later? If that is so, I can't take you seriously. Let's assume you are right and everyone spends all their money now. How is that worse than giving it to the government. The worst of my plan allows people to have some fun with their money before it's wasted. With the government, you always pay and get nothing. How is that better?
rusty159753 2 years ago
Hi,
You say that if the govt. didn't take 12.4% away from you then you would use that money to earn 5.2 million dollars by retirement age.
The govt. takes away 12.4% but people have the remaining 87.6% with them. Why don't they use part of this money to make the same 5.2 million dollars.
I think you are ignoring the fact that people will spend as much as they earn and increase their standard of living according to the money they make.
dsarosh 2 years ago
Thank you dsrosh for your response. It allows me to clarify some other misconceptions. The first being that Americans do not receive 87.6% because we lose 1.45% on Medicare, and depending on how much you make anywhere from 15%-35% Federal Income Tax. Then there is state taxes which, in my state have increased to another 1%-9.3% and also SUI/SDI which is another 1%. It's easy to see how we only have 69.05% at best and 40.85% at worst.
rusty159753 2 years ago