Social Security funniness over at the LAT

This L.A. Times piece is actually pretty decent, but it ignores the fatal flaw in Social Security: It is a Ponzi Scheme, plain and simple.

The idea presented is not new – raise the early retirement age from 62 to 65, and more people will pay into their pensions longer, more tax revenue will be created and, helpfully omitted, thousands of people who have paid into The System their whole lives will die, meaning even more money for the people lucky and/or healthy enough to live longer than 65, obviously not a rare thing in the USA.

I’ll be curious to see how my generation (that of the X) deals with the looming threat of Social Security. We’re outnumbered on both sides of the generational divide, and there aren’t enough of us to keep the damn thing afloat – this is of course ignoring the fact that, like the Oasis song, Boomer’s are going to live forever.

I still favor – as a short-term fix – the option of investors born before year X being able to invest part of their pound of flesh in the free market. It’s risky, but that’s sort of the American way.

Social Security is a symptom of horrid American thinking. Many people of the Beat Generation – my parents among them – believe that we need a Social Security system because people need something to retire on. They might be Conservative, but they think I’m insane for being willing to offer up 1974 as the X year mentioned above.

After reading this chunk, note the next part I highlight:

When Social Security was created in the 1930s, retirees could not start collecting benefits until age 65. But in 1956, eligibility rules were changed to allow women to begin collecting at age 62. In 1961, the rule was changed for men as well. Today, 62 is the most common age of retirement. With a typical 62-year-old likely to live to age 83, an individual now spends roughly one-third of his adult life in retirement.

For those who have saved enough, this is perfectly fine. But many people claim Social Security benefits at 62 without considering that doing so reduces monthly benefits by about 25% for life. Without early retirement, poverty among retirees over the age of 65 would be about one-fifth lower.

Restoring the early retirement age to 65 would have little effect on Social Security’s solvency, because benefits increase when retirement is delayed. The trust fund’s solvency would be extended for only a few years, meaning that other steps would be necessary to preserve it.

via To fix Social Security, raise the early retirement age –

Now this, to close the piece:

No one wants to work longer, just as no one wants to pay more taxes or receive fewer government benefits. But if future Americans simply work as long as past generations did, they could boost their retirement incomes, help the federal budget and benefit future generations.

When we speak of latent bias, this is what we speak of. I want to work longer, because my work is white collar and I like to work. I don’t want to pay more taxes, but I certainly don’t want to collect any government benefits i.e. entitlements. While I do not have the power to change the system as it is, I don’t think it prudent that every American have the notion that they should suck every last dime out of the public teet because they’re entitled.

That’s horrible thinking, but the L.A. Times is a rather horrible newspaper.



About godsowncrunk
I'm King B, the originator of the Jellywhite lyrical style and god's own crunk.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: