U.S. Social Security (Politics in Ecolang.)

U.S. Social Security (Politics in Ecolang.) - Privatizers don't like this! Best overview of U.S. Social Security debate. Vote it up!

The economy actually has a good outlook for Social Security and it stays stable as a percentage of GDP: see the Congressional Budget Office's long-term budget outlook.

The warning about the short-term Trust Fund deficit is a decoy to distract you from Social Security: It was the Bush income tax cuts that swallowed the payroll tax surpluses. (And then some!)

Tell the politicians to put taxes back the way they were, fix the healthcare system instead, and leave Social Security alone.

In another animation we will show that Social Security is the most-highly-evolved program to cover all the variables that it does so well.

Social Security probably is "efficient" -- in a COMPREHENSIVE economic sense that includes the minimization of the personal, social, and political transaction costs that must always be involved in balancing general welfare against distributional outcomes.

It's an amazingly good design for a universal safety net.

The fact that Social Security nearly "pays for itself" with a dedicated tax (the payroll tax) is very important with regard to tying together the following things, automatically: people's responsibility for a social safety-net; the life-long contribution that must require; and the final acceptance of one's personal tradeoffs regarding one's contingencies in the final outcome. So therefore, a discussion of "solvency" does have some "general welfare vs. distributional" decision attributes.

Again, Social Security is an amazingly good design for a universal safety net, and these general principles of it should be useful to the healthcare overhaul.

Still, supporters of Social Security follow the Trustee's actuarial reports, and so they accept that Social Security might need a tweak in 20 or 30 years.

P.S. Social Security is NOT "big government," and it is time to clarify the assertion. It is (relatively) big spending. But there is no bureaucracy and almost zero administrative overhead. What we DON'T want is a means-testing bureaucracy that has to deal with approximately half the retirees in every generation, with continuous political gaming by Congresspeople and lobbyists in search of money and votes. That would indeed be a big-government nightmare.

• Category

  Education

[leearnold]

The U.S. also has unemployment insurance and part of the political conversation at this moment is whether to extend it another year for the long-term unemployed.

[Paucce]

I'm Finnish. I'm getting unemployed or layoffed. I have payed 99 euros per year for the government owned unemployment fund. I get more then half of my normal salary until I've been looking for a job for 200 days. That money comes from the people who have their jobs. That is how we do it in a socialistic country. If you're without a job or money, you're not worthless. We'll pull you up. In Finland there are no beggers. If you don't have any, we'll give you some.

[leearnold]

--There is no reason not to have "faith" in it. It needs an adjustment in about 20-25 years. Raising payroll taxes and the tax cap a little would solve that problem. There is an enormous, multi-million-dollar propaganda effort to reduce benefits, or even put an end to Social Security and turn it over to Wall Street, but most people realize that this would not be in the best interest of the country nor themselves. --Lee

[Paucce]

Oh, I mean you have no faith for the the system and for it ever paying back. The reason for the people to put their money to the system. People pay for their own future instead of everyone elses. Here in Finland people with a higher income pay a higher tax percentage. And that's what I think is the difference between capitalism and socialism.

[leearnold]

--What do you mean exactly by, "the problem you have is in the progressivity of the taxes"? --Lee

[Paucce]

Thanks, I missed that. But I still think the problem you have is in the progressivity of the taxes. But also in the assotiation between socialism and communism (USSR).

[leearnold]

--After time 8:30 it shows that the contributions are regressive (due to the tax cap) but the pay-out is mildly progressive. --Lee

[Paucce]

This video pays no attenton to the progressivity to taxes.

[Bashia b]

Innaccurate. We have been paying into the Social Security trust fund with our FICA taxes. Our government has been borrowing from that trust fund and so the trust fund has U.S. treasury bonds in it. Right now because of the baby boom we are starting to pay out more than we currently take in, but that is what the trust fund is for and should take us through much of the baby boomer retirement years. To make Social Security solvent all we need to do is raise the cap.

[leearnold]

--The video was made in 2006, when there was still an annual surplus. After time 4:00, it states that this went to cover the rest of the budget and the tax cuts. Money is fungible. If you lump it all together: Payroll taxes got raised, only income taxes (favoring the wealthiest) were cut. In 2006, the privatization debate obscured this fact, to try to make the swindle permanent. --Lee