Greater to have a profession and get a substantial income than to look to rely upon SSN.

I'm 73 and rely entirely on Social Security for an income. The government had seen fit to curtail my income at such a level that other retirement options were not possible. However, that said, if the money i "deposited" with the SSA had been used to even buy government bonds, my current income would be much higher and SS would probably be solvent, assuming the government had kept their hands off it. I would have gladly place my money into other retirement options, if i had had income.

Otherwise, i am in complete agreement with the other comments. Unfortunately, it is too late for me.

Exactly. I cannot stand the idea they have stolen money from me, given to someone else, and promised something similar to me "IF", "IF", "IF", and more "If"s thasn you can ever understand. It is all gone, there is nothing, it is the single most glaring example of the "Looter" syndrome AR talked about in AS, one reason I profoundly believe in the book. SS is the posterboy program for Looting. A pox on it... I plan on working until I drop dead...

At least somebody (you) cared enough to guide him!

I totally agree that the financial endorsement of random procreation is an abysmal thing to have happen. It creates groups of people who may not even merit the word 'family' - because the children were engendered as financial tokens.

Daddies in traditional families sometimes forget their responsibilities too. (I had to stand-in to give the 'don't treat her wrong' talk to a young man who had proposed to one of my martial arts students...because her dad did not value her enough to do so. The fiance appreciated the fact that I had bothered to take him aside and personally threaten him...even tho he was bigger and stronger than I am and had a second degree black belt and front line military experience. He LIKED the fact that I gave a damn about the woman he loved and that I threatened to mug him in a dark alley if he did her harm. Nice guy.)

Jan

I think that the cause is a bit different: I think that the fact that men were less crippled emotionally and women were capable of earning their own way in the world made marriage a 'choice' (and allowed you to look for a good partner) rather than a 'requirement' (society gave you no real option). If you add to that the fact that our society is rather hodge-podge and people change over time, it is no surprise that many people experience 'serial monogamy' rather than lifetime marriages.

Jan

Actually Social Security may be the feds way of relieving their guilt for passing laws to allow looters on Wall Street to steal the retirement savings of the majority of people while enriching themselves and maintaining political control. Remember who "advised" many retirement funds to buy near worthless instruments while the sellers were taking a position exactly opposite to the advice?

You should have said taxed "again".

I am 63, and I have not yet applied for Social
Security. As I have understood for a long time,(and
I have sometimes wondered if Ayn Rand took it or
not), the money that has been taken from me is
gone. Didn't it go to older people as I was paying
it in? So if I file for it, there won't be anyplace
for me to get it from, unless it is from younger
people who will be paying it in then, will there?
I would like to believe it was just waiting there
for me in a box. Or even that it came just from
the general fund. But that is not how I have
understood it to be, for a long time. (I am cur-
rently unemployed, but looking for a job. It is
my intention never to retire, but just to die on
the job, whichever job it is).

Thank you for your discussion. This is helping clarify the key areas in my brain.

I remember when some friends of mine, both of whom had good jobs, chose to spend about $60K...having their yard landscaped. A few months after this project was complete, A lost her job and they both had to subsist on B's paycheck alone. This was difficult: They did not have any savings, or have anything set aside for retirement/emergencies.

It is examples like this that make me think that if we rearranged society so that the gov did not leech off most of what we earn...people would just spend the money on landscaping and purchasing expensive tools (that they never used - different family from previous example) and not set anything aside.

I think the very point at which we disagree is that I believe that IF people had a lot more money, they would spend it no more wisely than they do now. You think that if they had more money, they would put some aside for retirement.

The question I ask is not: What is right? What should we do? What should they do?

The question is: Will it work?

If we did not have SS to require people save for the future...would this realistically result in a huge percentage of retired people being totally insolvent?

Jan

Social Security was not a bad idea. It Is a flawed idea. You may or may not get all the money out of the system that you put in. Some will and some wont. Since 9 out of 10 people fail to manage their vouluntary 401k contributions, why would we assume they would manage a private SS account? If you do properly manage your 401k, then you can also afford to fund SS and elect never to file for benefits, thereby allowing somebody else less able to manage money to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Most people have not been trained to fend for themselves, and without the SS safety net, we'd have a society with more seniors on the street corner with I'm hungry signs looking for a handout. SS is the organized hand out program. If you consider SS a charity when you put the money in, then you don't have to find HATE for the system. We live in a society that has ample abundance for all to enjoy. Participate and be glad you don't have to rely on SS. If you do receive a check from SS, donate it and you avoid the tax.

...or, as we used to say in organizations with total incompetents in some high-level positions, "dirty pix on the boss"....

As they say, there is a first time for everything. I think the difference between SS, other government programs and Obamacare is that the former started out as "small, safety net" programs, then grew, and also in an era when liberal ideas were almost unchallenged. That is not the case with Obamacare. It was shoved down people's throats, over the opposition of most voters. A majority still oppose it (although I will admit that majority had shrunk somewhat), everyone, if they haven't been hurt themselves by Obamacare, knows someone who has. The minority they trot out to say they've been helped by Obamacare would be pro-Democrat anyway.

It is a necessary, although not sufficient, requirement that repeal would require holding both houses of Congress, electing a Republican President in 2016 (with some guts), and, already in the works, reasonable plans to replace, not fix, Obamacare.

Finally, if the next SCOTUS ruling goes against Obamacare, as it should, it becomes even more untenable.

It will be interesting to watch...

(edited for minor content)

In response to Jan's post, just because people fail to look out for themselves doesn't mean I am responsible to pad their corners. You are free to do so. What were they doing while my husband was working two jobs. After we were married we had two babies 11 months apart within 2 years and he earned two more college degrees. Our road to financial success was tough and often included working late and every Saturday. We also lived a thousand miles from our parents so we were truly on our own. There was one car. I have helped family members financially when I chose to do so. They a least had to listen to my lecture when I helped them. No one, no government has a right to redistribute what I earned. If I were not a southern lady I'd say f... them. Also, the government will waste our money and take our freedoms and collapse the country. Laws of Economics do exist.

That sounds fascinating, allosaur. I clicked on the link. I was very aware of the atrocities committed by the Germans in WWII, but I had never heard of anything like this from WWI. I can't imagine the work involved in writing a novel. Be sure and let me know when I can read it. I could be a proofreader for you!

I don't have a problem with AR taking Social Security. She probably needed to since she paid taxes. There is no doubt in my mind that Social Security has made life better for many people. That does not justify the government obligating us to eternal slavery paying for everything for everyone. I will opt for Freedom and all the risk that comes with it. That includes taking care of elderly parents. Maybe that's not a bad idea.

I call it Chasing Little Red inspired by a crazy Redhead I spent a couple of weekends with back in the 70s. I hope to write several Little Red novels (she will develop into a very dangerous person).
It started off to be an escapist action novel until I began to research more about the setting in the Walloon half of Belgium.of Aug, 1914.
Their French invasion timetable set back, the Imperial German Army had really become PO'd over Belgian resistance when they thought size would bully a cakewalk through that kingdom.
Terrible atrocities were committed against Belgians in several cities and Belgians were even forced to be human shields during marches.
So I wound up writing a far more bloody and horrific novel than originally intended.
It has a plot with subplots. The main plot is about a retired French general who inherited a chateau in near a real town called Neer where he breeds racing and military horses. The fifth of eight children is the only girl, now 16, who has a photographic memory and some related mental problems named Babette. .
A neurotic overgrown stallion named Demon will only let Babette ride it. Crazy gets along well with crazy. She escapes on Demon when the boche sack the horse ranch, her father telling Babette to ride to France and seek out an uncle, who will be a traitorous villain in the first sequel. (That's also written but all of it needs more work)
The Germans give chase because they think making her a hostage would give them leverage as they interrogate her father and five of her brothers (#1 bro a cuirassier and #2 a priest in France). The sad thing is that Papa and his boys do not know anything.
They chase Little Red to Dinant where Babette fails to rescue the little sister of her already murdered best friend. There she sees many men, women and children murdered by firing squads.
Then she's chased back from Dinant. Babette tries to go back home in hopes of saving her family.
Let's just say repeated tragedies begin to transform her character.
Here's a link about Dinanat. Click onto the photos to see awesome sights. Also check out the 675 people executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinant.

my second laugh today. nice. thanks

I make tiny little pencil ticks so as not to distract myself.

Jan,

I think my statement was much more limited than that. First it is clear that countries that try to save people from themselves, harm far more people than they save. Second, I think you under estimating brilliance of people in a free society and wealth they can create. The reason you and I and people you know do not have large retirement accounts is that it has purposely been stolen. Taxes take that part that you can save above living expenses. The math is a little long winded, but taxes do not take 50% of the wealth you generate, they take somewhere around 99%.

When the government started paying for illegitimate babies, there was no longer an incentive for the girl's Daddy to get out the shotgun.

You really need to find the time to read Atlas. I know it is extremely long, but it is well worth it. It is truly a life changing experience. I have read it at least a dozen times, with a highlighter by my side. It is now almost 100% highlighted because every time I read it, I find some new insight.

I would love to have a choice about who to give charity to, or to choose not to do so at all.
But I agree with you. I would help, and happily.

I agree that we need a full repeal, but when is the last time our government repealed any massive spending program?

I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but I do find it interesting that he caved right around the same time the NSA wiretapping program was at it's zenith. If you read the actual decision, it was clearly written to overturn the law, then the very end was changed to confirm the law. Someone or something clearly got to him after the decision was written.