The best argument I have heard for abolishing Social Security is that it's immoral to force me to pay for someone else's stupidity.

@immaculatesquid

4 жыл бұрын

Aeiou Vowels something that doesn't happen 95% of the time shouldn't determine half of pur tax dollars, if social security is to exist, states should choose to run their own programs if they wish. not have it crammed from washington. Therefore people like me, can just move if we don't like it. Can't do that when every issue is taken straigjt to DC

@yamahantx7005

4 жыл бұрын

@@aeiouvowels7305 Have you never heard of disability insurance? If people depend on you, isn't it your job to insure yourself? My best friend if a surgeon making over $500k a year and he has 'income replacement' insurance if something happens to him, Meanwhile, when I asked how long he'd survive without insurance if he lost his job tomorrow he said 20 years. Why did he buy the insurance? Because he has toddlers at home. The OP remains valid. If SS disability is a life saver, please tell me how people collecting are doing? Are they thriving? No.

@KevinWildes2024

4 жыл бұрын

@@yamahantx7005 trash!!!!!!

@aolvaar8792

4 жыл бұрын

@@aeiouvowels7305 5.3% for OASI and 0.9% for DI DI is way to generous for a 0.9% , That's $900 on a $100K

@kylewatson5133

3 жыл бұрын

That's about the same argument you can use for everything government does in the realm of economics.

I understand the argument for disability insurance and old age insurance but can't wrap my head around why I shouldn't be able to opt out of the old age insurance. I am 22 years old and have just begun paying into the system. Why should I not be able to simply sign a waiver declining old-age benefits in exchange for opting out of the 63% portion of the program that goes towards forced retirement savings. I don't understand how in a "free country" with "capitalism" the government should be able to force me to save? Can someone please explain?

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

Well, unfortunately we're not as capitalistic as everyone thinks we are, but I am 100% there with you. I think just adding an opt out of FICA taxes with an opt out of benefits is all we'd need to add to SS. If the program is such a good deal, then people won't opt out. I'm not even saying ask people whether they want it or not, I'm just saying allow people to opt out if they choose, but if they don't, by default they're in the system. That way, people who don't know or care (that the Dems are sooooo worried about) won't be accidentally kicked out of the system.

@MoonLiteNite

9 жыл бұрын

***** you can... it is called working for cash with a bunch of "illegals" :D

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+Asim Hussain Your first comment acknowledges the reality that SS is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. It's a shame that because FDR wanted to buy votes from old people 80 years ago we live today under the tyranny of a ponzi scheme we don't have the political will to stop.

@vforveracity7487

6 жыл бұрын

Search "col edward mandell house quote very soon every american" If you haven't yet peaked down the rabbit hole, here's your chance.

@ericschichl5996

6 жыл бұрын

actually, people who were retired COULD NOT GET SOCIAL SECURITY LOOK IT UP!!!!!!

Liberate the paychecks of hard-working Americans from the convoluted tax code and dictates of politicians on how to save for retirement.

@lylecosmopolite

5 жыл бұрын

Don't blame the income tax. For most Americans, that tax works as follows: (Wages + Profit from self-employment + Interest - 12K/24K for singles/couples - IRA contributions) x 0.1 - 2K x number of children - 500 x dependents over 18 - EIC. $1400/child is refundable. The bad news is that the EIC is weirdly complicated.

Keep it mandatory to have a retirement account but you decide the way it gets invested.

@sujaykrishnanath82

4 жыл бұрын

Dude what is Singapore doing , they also have complete private (but subsidized for poor ) healthcare and a forced health account . As a result the Singaporean healthcare cost is a third of that of American because Singaporeans bargain healthcare cost which is quite opposite of that in America where the government and the insurance companies bargains the cost for their own benefit.... Watch visual politick for greater info.

@gabbar51ngh

3 жыл бұрын

@@sujaykrishnanath82 Singapore has a surplus.

Millions of people rely on food stamps because THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. I know a family personally that does this. Neither parent works, they have a PS3 and bigass flat screen TV and several computers/tablets and buy whatever they want pretty much. Food stamps aren't a supplement for most people, they're the only or main source of income. It's an abused system that I don't want to fucking pay for. Neither do you. And we need a better one.

@itsm3th3b33

2 жыл бұрын

I see you complaining but providing no solution. Not talking about you not paying. Talking about how too prevent the abuse or how to feed those who truly need help. (say a wife of some worker who dies and had 3 children; need food until she gets into a new system)

@redditreciter8614

2 жыл бұрын

@@itsm3th3b33 guess what. Not my problem

@itsm3th3b33

2 жыл бұрын

@@redditreciter8614 guess what. Nobody gives a shirt what you think. It wasn't addressed to you.

in Australia we already have private retirement it's called superannuation and it works

In Australia we have our own scheme called "Super superannuation." It pools the assets as an optional program into super funds which fund private industries, which create investment in the economic sector you want and are competitive. The average savings then grew to about 9% of income (over it now) so it really makes me wonder why the States won't attempt something like this and have a forceful social security tax with no choice in your investment at a return of only 1%.

I can't believe I've stumbled upon an economics professor with some gray matter between his ears. I remember going through my MBA program and an economics Ph.D. tried telling me that SS is a good deal because we get our money back in a couple of years. Sure we do, if we ignore opportunity costs and the time value of money. It was my last class before graduation so I figured that discretion should outweigh valor. Regardless, if a bunch of actuaries tried to sell this scam in the private sector, they'd be thrown in federal prison. Is there a point where the rate of return on a set of cash flows is so bad, you'd have to label it as being unconscionable and a dumb investment? If so, what would that rate be? Well, I actually did take the time to calculate the IRR in Excel for the SS-related cash flows associated with my labor (6% + 6%). The results were absolutely horrible. I would have gladly embraced the abysmal returns of a passbook savings account over the social security system. At least I'd be able to leave the principal to my kids when I die. I didn't get to a positive rate of return until approximately 17 years into the plan. My best hope was to retire at 70 and live to 100. At that point, I'd actually make 1.9% on the outflows associated with my labor. If people were allowed to invest their money in highly diversified, risk-averse portfolios, they'd be able to retire in relative comfort.

To those of you who argue that ever Social security dollar spent creates X amount of growth elsewhere in the economy, let me ask: Where did that Dollar come from? What would it have been spent on? That dollar could have been invested in a small business, a small business that would have both produced actual wealth in the form of goods and services and provided jobs for the people in that community. where does this dollar go instead? It goes into consumer goods, while it may still result in the production of jobs these jobs have been displaced from where they would otherwise have been, they were not created because of social security. Further the money is being spent on the consumption of goods rather than the production of goods, so rather than adding to the pool of goods and services available to society it is merely taking from it.

@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739

4 жыл бұрын

Especially laughable when you consider that the growth generated from social security is interest collected in the form of debt from the government, which is growing higher than the spending on most social services....meaning they are borrowing that money, to pay off the minimum payment on their payday loan, to be able to afford to take out more to cover the initial loan, plus interest, to be able to have money to pay the next loan, plus interest........ad nauseum.

@lylecosmopolite

4 жыл бұрын

An article in the 1998 National Tax Journal found no effect of Social taxes or benefits on aggregate saving in the USA. Social Security merely takes purchasing power away from households that pay FICA tax, and gives that purchasing power to certain households in the form of benefits. This robbing Peter to pay Paul neither helps nor harms the aggregate American economy.

@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739

4 жыл бұрын

@@lylecosmopolite missing the point Champ.

@lylecosmopolite

4 жыл бұрын

@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 What do payday loans have to do with Social Security or anything alese we are talking about?

@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739

4 жыл бұрын

@@lylecosmopolite that one flew over your head eh champ? Maybe just leave the economics to the adults, k?

Your video is fantastic. Keep making great informative videos like this one.

This guy is the best. If there had been an econ professor like him at my alma mater, I may have considered majoring in econ. Please keep posting, these videos are superb.

Informative video, do you a source where I can find all the evidence graphs for a school project I am making?

2011 CNN Poll... Question 24: 54% of respondents favor at least a partial privatization of Social Security. i2 . cdn . turner . com / cnn / 2011 / images / 09 / 29 / rel16f . pdf

"70% of seniors lived in poverty prior to Social Security." Do you an official source for that? The earliest record I can find from the US Census Bureau is 1959.

The fact so many people still believe we all "pay into" the system, rather than see it for what it is - a tax - just kills me. It's related to how we see our annual tax refunds as a "gift from the government," rather than overtax the government is obligated to send back to us, so long as we can prove we deserve it.

If Social Security is such a good deal...how come they have to force people to participate?

@aolvaar8792

4 жыл бұрын

Cause we don't let stupid people Starve to death.

I live in the Czech republic and I calculated the loss of my money by using governmental social security at about 50%. Of course when I pay my social security payments, there is no savings account in the state, it just gives my money to someone else. It is far from being fair and wise saving for the retirement, because I'm giving about 1/4 of my money to the retired people for about 40 of the productive years, but when I retire I'll get only about half of what I earned for 40 years. Of course it is mandatory to participate on the social security program in the Czech republic keeping this inefficient nonsense alive.

social security.... the pension for slaves

Always love this guy's videos.

Thanks

If you want to protect against dumb or irresponsible people investing their SS retirement funds wrong or not at all, just have the system automatically invest it in treasury bills if people don't request otherwise. It's essentially foolproof, since the default would be a safe, fiscally feasible option.

The issue I have is that the government takes money from workers to pay of retierd people, instead of holding onto the money the government origionaly collected.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+Mystogan Edolas This is because FDR created the system to be a Ponzi scheme. They don't call it that, of course. They call it "pay as you go", but it's functionally a Ponzi scheme. Basically, when he implemented the program, he immediately started paying older people benefits from FICA taxes. People who never put into the system immediately started getting benefits as the money started coming in from payroll taxes. It was a wealth transfer scheme from the beginning, but he sold it as free money to old people and a retirement program for the young people. Hence how he nearly became US dictator; he just kept buying everyone off with the govt dole. Anyway, because the first SS contributors' money was immediately sent out the door, ever since then, the system requires new payers to pay off retired workers and it will continue to work that way until it falls apart or someone makes the hard choice and dismantles it. Either way, it won't be fun for the generation that doesn't get their benefits.

@wuyeelok

8 жыл бұрын

what happens if you were to go to your local IRS office to pay your taxes with actual cash? First, you would hand over your pile of currency to the person on duty as payment. Next, he’d count it, give you a receipt and, hopefully, a thank you for helping to pay for social security, interest on the national debt, and the Iraq war. Then, after you, the tax payer, left the room, he’d take that hard-earned cash you just forked over and throw it in a shredder. Yes, it gets thrown it away. Destroyed! Why? There’s no further use for it. Just like a ticket to the Super Bowl. After you enter the stadium and hand the attendant a ticket that was worth maybe $1000, he tears it up and discards it. In fact, you can actually buy shredded money in Washington, D.C. So if the government throws away your cash after collecting it, how does that cash pay for anything, like Social Security and the rest of the government’s spending? It doesn’t.

@lylecosmopolite

5 жыл бұрын

@@oterj0 Social Security was not created by FDR, but by intellectuals, including the Dean of the University of Michigan's business school.

@lylecosmopolite

5 жыл бұрын

@@wuyeelok You cannot use currency to pay the income tax you owe. Income and payroll taxes are paid directly by employers to the US Treasury. If your return shows that you come up short, you enclose a check with your return. The Treasury does not "throw away" any money it gets.

@lylecosmopolite

5 жыл бұрын

Edolas The 1935 Social Security Act said that one's benefit was strictly related to how much (s)he paid into the system. But that would have resulted in very very stingy benefits during 1940s. Benefits would not have been decent until the 1970s. The law was changed in 1939 so as to allow those who had contributed peanuts for a very few years to collect a benefit that greatly exceeded what they had contributed. The first SS check was issued on June 1, 1940 to Miss Ida Fuller of Vermont. She had just retired as a primary school teacher. She and her employer had paid on the order of $100-150 in FICA tax over 1937-40. She died in 1975, age 100, and so collected 35 years of benefits. She profited from the huge increase in benefits, in 1950-54 and in 1972. Social Security is a gamble. It screws those who die before reaching, say, age 75, and hugely advantages those who live into their 90s.

Beautifully said.

Thanks guys

it doesn't. the key issue is "push for big government"

But if social security taxes were abolished, how do you know employers would pay their employees more and not just keep it?

@marlonmoncrieffe0728

7 жыл бұрын

reversalmushroom Individuals would just freely ask or demand more money.

@vaibhav2k13

7 жыл бұрын

Because the labor market will react and competing companies will offer better salaries to get their competitors' employees.

@michaelpaliden6660

5 жыл бұрын

Employers pay one time on your cheek and one time you don't see. Even if you only gained your known portion and invested in A index you would be better off much better in fact

@user-hs4dm9xq5e

5 жыл бұрын

it will still come if not a tax, then as a mandatory payment in separate pension accounts. In Singapore I heard they have such accounts, which can be opened only when you retire, and then you can spend all shit at once, or, you know x$ per month. During your tenure, however, you can watch the money flow in the acc and even sue the employer if he underpaid there.

@harshitmadan6449

4 жыл бұрын

Let's say they keep it. All business owners will have more profits. They'll use it to hire more people.

i chuckled, thank you

amazing video!! thanks professor!!

Gold backed IRAs or you're just playing the feds game.

TAKE THAT BERNIE SANDERS! VOTE CRUZ/RUBIO/FIORINA FOR A BETTER AMERICA.

Brilliant argument.

so who decides and on what basis?

Relying on Social benefits are one way of relying on socialism, one step closer to communist!! No! there are no old age insurance!! Though I am not saying 401 k funding is capitalism either!! It is like comparing a future patient to received free health care from his investment in an investment firm that could have invest in a private hospital, not exactly the real thing as an investor receiving future discount from his investment in a hospital.

According to the AARP Public Policy Institute, Social Security puts $1.80 into the economy for every dollar of SS spent. This makes it a highly effective and economically stimulating program. The facts say that social security is beneficial to the economy, so it's crucial to remember that before you vote to gut it along with the majority of middle and lower class families' retirements.

@Monsuco

10 жыл бұрын

By this definition *every* government expense is stimulus.

@phatcatrat

10 жыл бұрын

Monsuco No, not all spending is stimulus. This is because not all spending is as efficient as Social Security, and reduces consumption and production instead. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at...?

@Monsuco

10 жыл бұрын

Social Security is basically just an inter-generational welfare program. We take money from the young (who are generally poorer) and give it to the elderly (who are generally richer). As this video points out, the young would have made *far* more money had they just put it in a retirement account and invested it. That's hardly a model of efficiency. Social Security is not invested in the market. Private retirement accounts are. So much for "stimulus". The fact that it's not vested in the market is also why the return on investment is so horrible for Social Security. If people were contributing that money to private 401(k) accounts, they'd be making more money and the markets would have more investment. The AARP's study just assumes that every dollar spent on SS magically appeared from thin air rather than being taxed from someone else. As the video pointed out and as has been pointed out elsewhere, the ROI is actually worse than Treasury Bonds. Treasuries are notorious for their low returns but even they trounce Social Security.

@phatcatrat

10 жыл бұрын

Monsuco Don't dodge the facts by spouting bullshit about what's rooted in the market and what isn't. The study shows that for the money taxed (with a payroll tax) and spent, Social Security is highly efficient, mostly due to the fact that it isn't profit-driven. You cannot ignore that.

@Monsuco

10 жыл бұрын

Once again, social security has one of the weakest rates of return on investment out there. It's *worse* than Treasury Bonds which is really saying something since Treasuries are notorious for their low returns. Treasury Bonds are at least, in theory, 0 risk investments. Social Security *will be insolvent in 2033*. I'm not proposing we end social security, I'm simply proposing we do what nations like Singapore do and allow for people who would rather invest their contributions into private 401(k) plans do so. If you want to be chained to a sinking ship then by all means, be my guest but why should I be forced to contribute to such a ridiculous program?

can you guys please make the videos for the "america's healthcare system" available again?

You are totally missing that when you die your spouse does not get to keep collecting your social security retirement nor does it go to your adult kids, which a private savings account would.

Mathematically you are correct. However, statistically most people are not financially savvy, do not study the stock market, do not track the stock market, will not spend the time watching the stock market and reacting to its changes, and over 30 years of doing tax returns, I have seen gobs of people lose money in the stock market following their skill of investing high and selling low primarily based on hyped BS statements from others. Only a small % of people have made huge gains. So, though SS is not the best investment vehicle, right now, it is one of the safest for most folks (well...we hope).

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

You've highlighted a major problem with American culture. For the most capitalistic country on earth, we sure have a lot of people who don't take responsibility for their own well being in retirement. I understand that some people just aren't interest or good at investing, but even if you take out commissions, using a financial adviser would be better than SS. Have you considered the possibility that the reason more people don't care about their retirement needs and investing is because of SS? Americans have become complacent because they know Uncle Sam will bail them out. I know people value security (overvalue, I think), but in this case, security has bred laziness and irresponsibility.

@4UMe2We

9 жыл бұрын

Yeah. Even financial advisers are not the best at what you think your getting. Seen several people rely on financial advisers recommendations only to lose hundreds of thousands. The weird thing about these people I know...all of them were advised by me, that the financial adviser decisions were lacking in logic....but because I am not one, they chose to listen to them. Live and Learn.

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

4UMe2We I'm not saying financial advisers are the preferred option. I do not use one and have no plans to do so ever, but I enjoy investing on my own. I just think govt providing a "guarantee" has resulted in people being less interested in providing for their own well being in retirement. Maybe it's harsh, but no one has your best interest in mind more than you do, so take some initiative.

@4UMe2We

9 жыл бұрын

I understand your side perfectly. It is interesting to note that SS was set up after the great depression of 1929 under Roosevelt. Prior to this, people had the ability to finance their own retirement as you mentioned. That did not happen and many went to the poor house when they stopped working and were looking at the government to help them. People being people the vast majority of them are unable to balance their own check books, let alone invest. The average credit score is what? about 500-600. Not good. So, I revert to my original statement. SS is not the best investment vehicle...for a lot of folks, it is the ONLY one they can depend on, and at a minimum it helps reduce the hand outs and expense to society.

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

4UMe2We Yes, during the greatest depression the modern world has ever seen, yes, understand that many people simply could not provide for themselves. That's not relevant now. Even during the Great Recession, GDP didn't collapse nearly to the extent it did during the Great Depression. Federal Reserve policy makers are well aware of the impact that the deflationary environment of the Great Depression had in terms of exaggerating the pain and now they err much more on the side of inflationary. I think it's a bit condescending to think that a large percentage of people just won't take care of themselves if forced to do so. If you tell someone, you're not smart enough to save for your own retirement, you need SS, then yes, I do believe it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Tell people they're smart enough to do it themselves and need to do so because govt won't bail them out and we'll be surprised how many people figure it out.

Bullshit and no thanks. I worked for 25 years and paid into social security, but I'm not working now. I imagine there are a lot of people in my boat. Unless they want to refund my contributions plus interest I better get my damned social security checks when I hit retirement age or heads will roll.

@SevenRiderAirForce

10 жыл бұрын

He said to guarantee people's investment and phase out the system. He said you would get exactly what you signed up for. The major point he was making was that if you do that and let people invest it in private sector markets or even T-bills, people will get way more money in the end!

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

David Battle Here's the problem. While you worked for 25 years, Mr. Baby Boomer, you also kept voting for Congresses and Presidents who raided your SS trust fund and spent that money on other federal expenditures. We have a $2.5T SS trust fund, but we have a $17T debt. You baby boomers spent more than you took in big time. Guess what, now it's time to pay the piper. Fix the deficit by cutting retiree benefits. They were the ones who spent us into oblivion anyway. It's only fair.

@oterj0

9 жыл бұрын

David Battle It's a pay as you go system. Your money disappeared back when you paid your FICA taxes. You have no rights to your SS benefit; Congress is free to change it at any time.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+TimeWarp66 I agree, but this is much more difficult in practice to accomplish. Since the only reason retired people get their benefits is because new workers pay FICA taxes, taking FICA taxes from new workers and putting them to private accounts means there's no money to pay the current retirees. Basically we'd need a generation of deleveraging to undo the Ponzi scheme. Would the American public be up to swallowing that pill?

you have a great argument there

Thanks for answering. it's just I read somewhere that the CCA was offering to buy 90% of state prisons or some stat like that, don't know if it's true. But no matter the scope of the private prison system, it still scares me that they have powerful incentives to lobby for harsh and restrictive laws.

Social security is not meant to be an investment vehicle, it's meant to force people to save for old age. That's all. So stop evaluating it like an investment product.

@jeffiek

9 жыл бұрын

alotan2acs Except that it doesn't force people to save for old age. It forces workers to pay for retirees.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+jeffiek Well put. Saving for old age would be putting money aside to buy an annuity. SS is an inter-generational wealth transfer scheme.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+alotan2acs So if all you want to do is force people to save for old age, why don't you force them to save for old age? Instead of taking 12.4% of people's money and putting it into the SS trust fund, why not put it into a 401k type account? If your concern is market risk, only allow people to invest in T-bills or bonds or make them use the money to buy an annuity. There is no reason to bring the govt into the mix to "manage" the money.

@alotan2acs

8 жыл бұрын

oterj0 Indeed. I suppose they allow it because liberty and personal freedom are important values in America, so the gov decides to give people some element of choice.

@wuyeelok

8 жыл бұрын

what happens if you were to go to your local IRS office to pay your taxes with actual cash? First, you would hand over your pile of currency to the person on duty as payment. Next, he’d count it, give you a receipt and, hopefully, a thank you for helping to pay for social security, interest on the national debt, and the Iraq war. Then, after you, the tax payer, left the room, he’d take that hard-earned cash you just forked over and throw it in a shredder. Yes, it gets thrown it away. Destroyed! Why? There’s no further use for it. Just like a ticket to the Super Bowl. After you enter the stadium and hand the attendant a ticket that was worth maybe $1000, he tears it up and discards it. In fact, you can actually buy shredded money in Washington, D.C. So if the government throws away your cash after collecting it, how does that cash pay for anything, like Social Security and the rest of the government’s spending? It doesn’t.

This is clearly right wing politics. The whole reason social security was put in place was not for percentage returns, or for the wealthy to make more money, it was to protect the lower to middle class for when they couldn't properly save enough to retire. The elderly in the 40's had a significantly higher poverty rate than their is now, and that is because of social security. People don't invest as much on their own or might not be able to, so this is a safety net program.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+Hunter Renn The problem is the more you protect people from bad decisions such as not planning for retirement, the more bad decisions you get. Kind of like banks making risky investment decisions. The govt insures their depositors' money, so they might as well swing for the fences when they trade, because if they win, they get a huge bonus, but if they lose, the govt picks up the tab. It's similar with SS. Because SS is there, people don't save what they should for retirement.

@SillyGoose2024

8 жыл бұрын

You missed the point that the program , with all of its good intentions, will be bankrupt IN YOUR LIfeTIMe ...it worked for a while but, like all socialist programs, is doomed to failed over time. And the time is soon.

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+uannoyme74 True, but what the SS supporter will point out is that a mere 30% cut in benefits when the trust fund runs out will balance the Ponzi scheme (I mean, the pay as you go system). Of course, the irony is that if you propose a modest 10% cut now to smooth it out a bit and prolong the Ponzi scheme now vs. waiting til the bitter end, they freak out that you would dare consider cutting SS. They consider the 30% cut needed in the future when the trust fund runs out to be no big deal, but a 5 - 10 % cut today is absolutely anathema. Morons.

@SillyGoose2024

8 жыл бұрын

oterj0 its a bare minimum resource that doesnt provide much now, if its cut by 30% it has even less value to old people. perhaps that cut makes the whole program solvent, but it also might make it worthless. what's the argument against switching to a personal account program for SS? (We've seen on this channel, I'm sure, their position of the positives of moving to that, I'm wondering what the dangers are (beyond speculative markets) on privatizing this?

@oterj0

8 жыл бұрын

+uannoyme74 I don't have a problem with a private account system, but the key problem is how do we convert the Ponzi scheme into a defined contribution type system. Because current beneficiaries are receiving money only because current employees are paying their FICA taxes, if you take the FICA taxes and divert them to personal accounts, how do current retirees get paid? Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the Ponzi scheme, I'm just pointing out the hurdle that must be crossed to go to a private account system. We have to figure out how to bust the Ponzi scheme. It's going to be extremely painful if doable, but it's also likely to be politically unattainable. Basically, FDR bought votes and nearly became the US dictator by using unborn people's money to give to old people who never paid into SS. We need to figure out how to pay back FDR's political quid pro quo.

fantastic video

i love this channel!

Great video

Two words: Personal Responsibility.

Can you please explain the 20-30 phase plan with a little more detail, it sounds awesome.

at 2:00, Where does the 1.2 percent come from? How is that calculated?

Pro / Con Social security: +Everyone is covered. +Gov savings are much more stable than private. +It has a national effect which lowers desperation and crime. -Its depended on amount of current tax payers.You pay for your dad,your son pays for you.The payout may therefor be adjusted for this level. Private: +/-Statistically you are more likely to earn more than Gov savings, but then again you may not. +You have more personal control of your savings and its pay out. -Its a high risk investment.

I'm still in school, but when I start earning money , do I HAVE to pay social security? Can I just opt-out of it?

@nothing-wp9ti

5 жыл бұрын

you HAVE to pay fica taxes

Great information

@LearnLiberty

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you think so!

good facts, youve made Moore look so much better

Social security retirement : not enough to get by. To survive on ssi you have to have a house already paid, or else live with a big family of money makers ie, grandma moves in with her grownup kids, otherwise you will not be able to survive. Private retirement: live the America dream.

Would this negatively affect the market with all these people investing?

@agent99._.53

2 жыл бұрын

Nope

Nice.

The only thing I would be interested in knowing is whether this accounted for compound interest on personal retirement savings. It doesn't looks like it did. If that's the case, the personal retirement numbers would be much, MUCH better than SS.

Gold doesn't tank when the economy improves. It's merely a reflection of current value of money. It will slow growth after improvements in the economy however. Investing in gold is basically like investing in a basket of commodities (INCLUDING oil and food) but without needing to participate in the market. Also, the Ryan plan doesn't do nearly enough. From what I understand it doesn't even cut existing deficits, only how quickly the deficits will expand.

awesome

You have forgotten the fact that the investment companies that manage your investments will charge a minimum of 2% off the top line; and once you retire you have to buy an annuity, which after charges will pay less than SS.

The "unified budget" occurred in 1968 under the Johnson Administration. Also, keep in mind, The AMT was enacted in 1969 because, AGAIN, when top rates were at 70%, the "rich" effectively paid LESS than now, some, among 155 top earners PAID NO INCOME TAXES.

Best alternative to what?

I'm an Investment Advisor who's only 22. I'm totally showing this to clients

I do believe it is an annual percentage yield; the interest calculated yearly. If you calculate just off of the raw input and output figures, you need a higher percentage to get the final amount because you don't have the interest compound itself.

This all sounds great if you are young or 55+. I'm 48, my wife is 47. We both worked full time in college so we have been paying for a combined 59 years. All I hear when solutions are discussed completely screws my age group. Change to private, I'm all for it, right after you return all the money we have paid in.

@felixrayce7596

2 жыл бұрын

The money you paid in is gone. It gets spent every year on the existing retirees. To address that problem, some kind of slow withdrawal from SS has to be developed.

Its about control...not security....its about dependency...not liberty....I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!

The crappy thing is that if they do decide to change social security to a private model. It probably be when the market is at its highest. They should off done this back in 09.

@ThePeterDislikeShow

5 жыл бұрын

That's true. I never understood why people rush to buy stocks when the price is high but rush to buy consumer goods during a big sale. I personally see corrections as the stock market being on a Black Friday sale.

i love this channel

The front page says that it is a telephone poll among American adults plus 917 registered voters. Random selection among these two sets is implied. If the selection weren't random, then the subsets (adults Americans and registered voters) would be misstated.

Great video, LearnLiberty. If you've ever thought of a follow up video for this one, a real world example of the alternatives to Social Security could look the Superannuation arrangements in Australia: 9% of income sent from employers to Super fund (taxed at 15% rather than the employees marginal rate of ~32% Invested in retail funds, industry funds (ie unions) or self managed super funds who have the freedom to invest in cash, shares, mutuals, bullion, property. Its a great system.

A true mans character isn't what his government forces him to do, or has his government force other people to do. But what he freely chooses as an individual to do with his resources, with his time, with his opportunities.

Thank you for correcting me. That is one of those things that no matter how many I see it, I'll never remember how to spell it correctly. Like the word recieved, or Zues.

How will that lower returns on stocks?

I kind of just accepted that social security isn't going to be around in 25 years but I recently read these articles saying that it would... now im a bit conflicted... is the idea that SS is going bankrupt/going to be insolvent a misconception?? your thoughts?

In a Second. Id opt out immediately.

Big brother always knows best, at being inefficient. Where the free market does everything to a higher standard or quality

A good argument that is adopted by the "nanny state" operators. "People don't know how to do it, therefore they should forfeit their own rights and liberties in leau of someone who is a 'specialist'." - The specialist being somebody who may or may not have the people's best interest at heart. Social security is a prime example of that. It was meant for people who were not saving up. However, a significant portion of the funds were detoured for side projects by various offices of government.

I would like to add on to this great point. With the rise of the Information age with things like the internet and social media on the internet. Communication between the charitable and those that seek charity is easier than ever. It is easier to find a charity to give to and request assistance from.

Great video… I’ve been saying this for years (I wish I could opt out and invest the money privately instead). Glad to see the detailed math laid out for everyone to see. It’s a Pyramid Scheme (or Ponzi Scheme)…. Either way, late contributors will get hosed.

@LearnLiberty

2 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Ha okay thank you, i'm french so i don't know the american social security system very well. But in 2010 for example, social security spent 710 billion for 54 million people, so the average pension should be around 13 000$ no ?

The problem with this is that people are living past 73 years old and then suddenly your return on social security begins to skyrocket.

What a brilliant and erudite comment. Please enlighten us further with your many years of astute scholarship and wisdom.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a return of 295,500 after paying in 216,400 gives you a 1.3655 VALUE (not percentage) of return on the amount payed in, which would be a 36.55 PERCENT return. Am I right?

And the worst part is, at least here in Canada, is that if you make a lot of money throughout your career you don't even get your money back...the government just keeps it. My grandpa came from a lower middle class background but eventually was able to start his own business and did pretty well for himself...well enough that the government decided they would just keep the money he paid into social security during his 40+ years of work.

"over the past 50 years the S&P 500 has generated a return 5.1% greater than inflation". And over the past 10 years it has generated a return of 2.4%. And now Goldman Sach is shorting the S&P 500.

@jasonterry1959

3 жыл бұрын

Look, I get it. This comment is old as fuck. You probably don't even have access to this account anymore. But for anyone who stops by to read this, the S&P 500 tripled in the past 10 years while we only had 19% inflation.... $1 2010 is worth $1.19 now. The S&P 500 has gone up roughly 12.5% yearly for the past decade. It has so far eclipsed inflation that it's not even funny. Privatize retirement, and do it now.

Good analysis. However, I would add that any level of privately-held investment remains in the control of investor/retiree. If you privately save for 40 years and build a huge nest egg and then suddenly die, that wealth remains with the estate (minus anything the government can tax/confiscate). The ability to amass wealth and pass it on to heirs is preserved instead of being absorbed into the ever hungry amorphous government welfare system.

What an interesting way to look at Social Security

The first problem with social security is that it is a forced purchase. People will point out that old people need that retirement income, of course they need it , that money was taken away from them by force in the first place, stop taking that money away and people would be allowed to invest in their retirement any way they chose.

Truth.

This is the best, most concise explanation of private retirement savings accounts EVER! It would be neat if you could show what the early bird seniors got. I'm sure that they got a far better deal than private savings. But, of course, that is to be expected for a Ponzi scheme, right?

Being that a good portion of the population is completely unable to plan, save and prepare for their own future, it falls on the rest of us to not only pay towards various social programs like social security, but to also save and set aside money for own financial goals. If we were able to transition out of social security, it would firmly pressure future generations to plan and prepare their own future.

Save in gold and silver but play with the fiat.

"That is rule number one in any system of exchange; costs are passed to the lowest rung" Not necessarily, that depends largely on the elasticity of demand. If the goods a firm sells are "elastic," then, a given % change in price will lead to a greater % change in the quantity demanded. Thus, if firms that sell elastic goods increase their prices to pass the cost of taxes, they will actually lose more in revenue than they would if they didn't change their prices.

Be careful about applying poverty rates to senior citizens. The Census' definition of poverty includes only income, not wealth. For example, if you retire at 65 with $500,000 in the bank and you have the money in Treasury bills (paying 3% interest), your income is $15,000 and you are counted as poor. The $500,000 in the bank isn't included in the poverty calculations -- just your income.

i don't think the treasury bills in which social security is invested would be worth anything in an ice age. what do you think?

Both valid points. I also know what my money is being used for, unlike with taxes.

good video

stocks are risky. What's even more risky is depending on the government to take care of you.

The point I am trying to make is not whether or not a person should have a choice between the two but that one should be wary of either or whatever choices the make if they must make one. You can read it in my original comment if you haven't already ;)

Privatizing things, like verything else, is a double edged sword.

They are currently paying SSN from the general fund anyway, there is no lock box. A partial answer to your question is; as time passes, as people start withdrawing to retire. People will now be earning more since they had better returns, so gov;t revenue would see a boost from there. Also this way the account would be owned and could be inherited or passed to children, this might help supplement other aid programs. Ideally everyone could self insure late in life.