Text 4784, 99 rader
Skriven 2010-02-07 05:52:34 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
   Kommentar till text 4649 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Entitlements
====================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to Bob Ackley:

 RB> Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe on Friday February 05 2010
 RB> at 06:40:

 BA>>>> One "contribution" is apparently enough.

 RB>>> No, it certainly is not. The only way you get anything out
 RB>>> of the U.S. program is if you contribute for a certain
 RB>>> minimum number of quarters. As I recollect, it's around
 RB>>> 60 quarters or five years.

 BA>> Then the rules were changed.

 RB> Not during the time I've been on this earth, or at least
 RB> since I was employed in the States in 1956-58. The only
 RB> change since then has been the increase in retirement age
 RB> and possibly the situation with respect to bilateral
 RB> agreements sith other countries, although that didn't
 RB> concern me until I moved to Germany.

 BA>> As I noted that lady had made precisely one such
 BA>> "contribution" and then drew benefits for several years,
 BA>> beginning in about 1940.

 RB> OK, what the situation was in 1940 is beyond me, as I wasn't
 RB> even born then.

 BA>> Of some interest is the fact that in 2010 Social Security
 BA>> will pay out more in benefits than it takes in in
 BA>> "contributions"...

 RB> Is that anything new?

AAMOF It is.  Up through 2009 SS current receipts were enough to pay
current benefits with the surplus going to the Treasury's general fund to
be wasted by our politicians.  In 2010 there not only will be no surplus
there will be a shortfall and SS will have to dip into that (nonexistent)
"Trust Fund" to pay all the benefits due.

This happened once before, back in about 1980 - which is the last time
they "fixed" Social Security.

 RB> Social security in the States is
 RB> financed the same way as the system in Germany, namely a
 RB> "rollover" or "pay as you go" system where the (forced)
 RB> contributions of the young are immediately paid out to the
 RB> old in pensions. That kind of financing only works when
 RB> there are more young workers (_not_ unemployed!) than old
 RB> people, or at least no more old people than young workers.
 RB> That hasn't been the case for many years. The difference is
 RB> generally made up from tax revenues.

Which is *exactly* how the system is working in the US.  There
usedtawas about five workers for each person drawing SS benefits.
At least a decade ago it was down to three workers and may be
down to two workers by now.  This is unsustainable - and anybody
with a functioning brain should be able to see that.

 RB> That's why I keep writing the pension systems based on such
 RB> financing are already bankrupt, and will become more
 RB> bankrupt over time. However, the governments managing them
 RB> refuse to acknowledge this and keep trying to pretend that
 RB> these pension systems will somehow go on forever.

 BA>> Insofar as Social Security as welfare is concerned...

 RB> I appreciate your arguments, but maintain that "welfare" is
 RB> something you get without paying _anything_ in return. Your
 RB> Social Security benefits have been paid for, and if the
 RB> government hasn't managed the money well and has to pay out
 RB> more than it takes in, that's not your fault.

That's the way the rules were written.  I've played by the rules.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, it's just my opinion that if
Joe Taxpayer is paying for it, it's welfare; and Joe Taxpayer is
paying for those benefits after about five years on SS.

Note that the government can change those rules at any time.  It did
WRT military retirement, and screwed a LOT of people who had 
already put in their time and retired (me among several thousand others).

I note that health care is NOT free in the active duty military any
longer.  Troops are *required* to purchase Tricare Prime coverage,
there are no other options for them.

 BA>> It looks like that in about 2012 I will beome a welfare bum
 BA>> living off the taxpayers - but then the world will end in
 BA>> that year so I won't be a burden for very long...

 RB> ;-) Hopefully you're wrong. At any rate, my attitude is that
 RB> anyone who refuses a government handout he's entitled to is
 RB> a fool. We pay high enough taxes when we earn money to have
 RB> no bad conscience when we receive it.

That's pretty much how I look at it.

---
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)