Should entitlement programs be optional?

[iustitia]

Many believe in social safety nets. Most do actually. Any time there's a question of reform, however, people lose their minds. Some want all the current programs (if not more) in place and want their status assured and funded. Some are ok with the current programs existing but want reforms in this and that. Some support these programs if they're voluntary, meaning optional to the people they're meant to be for. Some are against these programs but want them phased out over time so those who rely on them aren't hurt by sudden policy changes. And some think that they're absolutely unconstitutional and immoral to be forced to pay into.

1. Should citizens be allowed to opt out of programs like social security and keep what they would pay into it if it is their wish to spend, save or invest it how they want?

2. Should citizens be given the option to paying into welfare programs, meant to help others besides themselves, without it being mandated?

I believe national welfarism is unconstitutional. Because, well, it is. But it seems to me that if a "social safety net" is in place like SS that people pay into their whole lives that they should be given the option of not participating as it's their earnings. Likewise, chipping in to welfare programs is often spoken of as a moral obligation to help the disadvantaged, but charity in my opinion can't be compulsory.

If a welfare state is unavoidable it just seems rational to give people more options than losing half a paycheck at gunpoint. If one wants insurance services like social security or unemployment, then they can pay into it now for later on, or they can keep what they earn and invest it how they want while accepting the responsibility of their choices. If one needs welfare programs like food stamps then they could pull from a donation pool of fellow citizens who chose to pay into it.

Authoritarians tend to want a cradle to grave, womb to tomb government and libertarians tend to want a rugged individualism without coercion. So wouldn't it make sense to accommodate both philosophies?

[Common]

The answer is no individuals cant be allowed to opt out, the programs are built on full participation with everyone sharing the benefits as eligible.
Making it voluntary only means the people of means dont have to pay into it, which is the same as killing it.

[Peter1469]

That would be like letting people not pay taxes during war. Society has to come to an agreement.

[iustitia]

The answer is no individuals cant be allowed to opt out, the programs are built on full participation with everyone sharing the benefits as eligible.
Making it voluntary only means the people of means dont have to pay into it, which is the same as killing it.

It seems to me that such a good idea wouldn't need people forced into supporting it.

I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens speaking on the mindset of the British and giving blood. There is always enough blood because people want to give it and they know it's important.

I don't think giving people the option of being responsible for their own money or for lifting up their fellow man by choice would be catastrophic.


That would be like letting people not pay taxes during war. Society has to come to an agreement.

That's what this proposal is about. Agreeing to something.

[Common]

That was one of paul ryans plans to kill social security, allow people to opt into 401ks he knew damn well that would kill SS which was his goal.

[iustitia]

Did Paul Ryan actually say his goal was to kill social security or did he say he wanted people to have more control of their money?

And honestly, if people choose not to pay into ss then how does that hurt those that do? I know it's not really the case, but supposedly we get what we pay into it. So what a man of means pays in shouldn't affect what a poorer man gets back. Unless we want to admit that it's a ponzi scheme and unsustainable, in which case not allowing choice seems kind of sadistic.

[Common]

It seems to me that such a good idea wouldn't need people forced into supporting it.

I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens speaking on the mindset of the British and giving blood. There is always enough blood because people want to give it and they know it's important.

I don't think giving people the option of being responsible for their own money or for lifting up their fellow man by choice would be catastrophic.



That's what this proposal is about. Agreeing to something.


You miss the whole point, the entire program is based on 100% participation, with everyone having a benefit upon eligibility.

[iustitia]

Why does it matter what percentage participates?

[Common]

Did Paul Ryan actually say his goal was to kill social security or did he say he wanted people to have more control of their money?

And honestly, if people choose not to pay into ss then how does that hurt those that do? I know it's not really the case, but supposedly we get what we pay into it. So what a man of means pays in shouldn't affect what a poorer man gets back. Unless we want to admit that it's a ponzi scheme and unsustainable, in which case not allowing choice seems kind of sadistic.

Of course the sleezy little bastard didnt come out and say it, does any politician come out and say HEY YO im sticking it to you.

He came out with his first budget which included volunatary 401ks in lieu of SS and a whopping 29% tax cut for the richest americans in only the top tax bracket and corporate tax rate. His budget plan lowered it from 35% to 25% everyone else got nothing because paulie said the tax cut would produce UNPRECENDENTED grouth an opportunity. ALL typical right wing bullshit. Thats why that budget went down and the two after it went down. Ryan scorecard is the same as Daryl Issa zero <0>

[Mr. Right]

This is a most valid question/topic. It amazes me that so many who are involved in the political process are unwilling to discuss this. People are
TERRIFIED to discuss this. Each year we have another bumper crop of young impregnated by "no one identified/responsible" who go onto the dole. All that's required of them is spitting out a sprog, then a quick trip to social services endows them a life free of labor, responsibilty, or accountability. Some on the left spew "you're racist"... LOL.. It's going to be so humourous when there are ACTUALLY 47%
dependant on the gooberment.. That 47% myth was a broad brush. It included SS VA and other government pensioned people.
The government of NOW is going to keep borrowing, keep raising taxes, and keep propping up the useless elements of society. The puke part of this is that schit elements of politicos will continue their pandering to same. It is time for revolution.

[Common]

Why does it matter what percentage participates?

Numbers if everyone participates the program stays stable, take money out of it like congress robs SS regulary and it goes into deficit.

Everyone pays in eveyrone gets a return, whats the big deal if you can afford it get a 401k too.

[Common]

This is a most valid question/topic. It amazes me that so many who are involved in the political process are unwilling to discuss this. People are
TERRIFIED to discuss this. Each year we have another bumper crop of young impregnated by "no one identified/responsible" who go onto the dole. All that's required of them is spitting out a sprog, then a quick trip to social services endows them a life free of labor, responsibilty, or accountability. Some on the left spew "you're racist"... LOL.. It's going to be so humourous when there are ACTUALLY 47%
dependant on the gooberment.. That 47% myth was a broad brush. It included SS VA and other government pensioned people.
The government of NOW is going to keep borrowing, keep raising taxes, and keep propping up the useless elements of society. The puke part of this is that schit elements of politicos will continue their pandering to same. It is time for revolution.

what are you babbling about, were talking about social security, which everyone pays into and gets a benefit at the end. Theres millions of americans that have SS as their ownly income in their later years.
If there was no social security the govt would be paying through the nose for all those millions of people with no income.

The far right is narrow minded and shortsighted and can see beyond the tip of their nose.
All the want to do is cut EVERYTHING for the lower economic rungs and give everything to the rich.
They dont give a damn about any of the consequences.

[Crepitus]

If we let people opt out we will just have to support s certain number of them who either fail to invest or fail to invest wisely and end up penniless anyway. Don't see how that will be a benefit or a savings.

[iustitia]

Numbers if everyone participates the program stays stable, take money out of it like congress robs SS regulary and it goes into deficit.

Everyone pays in eveyrone gets a return, whats the big deal if you can afford it get a 401k too.

How does paying out to less people make it less stable? Shouldn't it do the exact opposite? I'm not talking about spending people's money like Congress, but the exact opposite, giving people control over their own money. Again, it's their money so the system loses nothing if someone opts out of it.

[zelmo1234]

That was one of paul ryans plans to kill social security, allow people to opt into 401ks he knew $#@! well that would kill SS which was his goal.

Yes it would, because if you could allow the people to pay their 6.5% into a 401K instead of SS the minimum wage earner would retire with an upper middle class income.

The Democrats will hear nothing of this. SS to them is a promise of poverty, and they thrive on dependent people

[zelmo1234]

Numbers if everyone participates the program stays stable, take money out of it like congress robs SS regulary and it goes into deficit.

Everyone pays in eveyrone gets a return, whats the big deal if you can afford it get a 401k too.

Because the return on invest me is about the same as being mugged in the park at night. It is terrible.

[PolWatch]

Tell that to the people who lost everything they had in 401K's in the last crash...those who had to work into their 70's trying to get enough to live on after retirement.

[zelmo1234]

Tell that to the people who lost everything they had in 401K's in the last crash...those who had to work into their 70's trying to get enough to live on after retirement.

first nobody lost everything. and second what you lost in 08-09 was return by 12 and you were way ahead by the middle of 13.

Now Yes the plans should be managed. so money is put into securities as you get closer to retirement.

[Cthulhu]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Sent from my evil kitten eating cell phone.

[Reason10]

Without entitlement programs, there would be NO elected Democrats.

[Cigar]

It's Monday :laugh:

[SouthernBelle82]

I love how now they're "entitlement programs." Damn straight. And why should they be optional? Don't people know how programs like Social Security are paid into? :rollseyes:

[iustitia]

I love how now they're "entitlement programs." Damn straight. And why should they be optional? Don't people know how programs like Social Security are paid into? :rollseyes:

They've always been entitlement programs. Because they're, you know, entitlement programs...

Anyway, did you have an argument against opting out?

[Mr. Right]

I'd like it if they'd just give me every nickle I've paid into the system since 1971, with interest instead of deciding I deserve $???? per month.
There would be no squawk out of me if they'd to that. Anything less is government theft.

[Peter1469]

A 401K type replacement for SS would be much better. But then people would own that asset. They have no ownership interest in SS. And the government could insure the 401K type plans if a particularly bad year hits. In the vast majority of instances the market provides much larger returns than SS.

[Mister D]

It seems to me that such a good idea wouldn't need people forced into supporting it.

I'm reminded of Christopher Hitchens speaking on the mindset of the British and giving blood. There is always enough blood because people want to give it and they know it's important.

I don't think giving people the option of being responsible for their own money or for lifting up their fellow man by choice would be catastrophic.



That's what this proposal is about. Agreeing to something.

In this country I think Common and Peter are right. Individualism and diversity come at a steep price. We've allowed any sense of commonality not grounded in materialism to slowly erode. If you allow people to opt out many will thus killing the program.

[zelmo1234]

I love how now they're "entitlement programs." $#@! straight. And why should they be optional? Don't people know how programs like Social Security are paid into? :rollseyes:

So tell me how good SS is? Why are we paying 6.5% of our income into this program?

[metheron]

While there is a welfare program in place it would make no sense to allow people to opt out of social security. Why would they need that when they will be supported anyway?

While I don't like the way that our social programs are run/looked after, I think they are necessary. There are many good people on them that need it, they don't abuse it, just need it.

I think people that want to hold themselves in a higher regard than others want to make this stuff optional. People taht have been fortunate to be in good health or have never had an emergency that devastated them. People don't realize sometimes how big of a factor that luck plays into their situations.

I would vote for not optional, although I would also vote to change them a bit.

[iustitia]

Once again, if SS is funded by money paid into it then how does the system get hurt by people choosing not to participate? If someone else chooses to pay into it then they would have it later when they need it. But if I choose to keep my money and opt out, that's not hurting someone else that is using the system. I think some people are missing the point here. If it's my money, why can't I have the option of getting it up front? I'm not taking someone else's money, I'm just keeping my own which logically should not harm those using it.

So can anyone actually tell me how allowing some to opt out will hurt those that don't?

[metheron]

Once again, if SS is funded by money paid into it then how does the system get hurt by people choosing not to participate? If someone else chooses to pay into it then they would have it later when they need it. But if I choose to keep my money and opt out, that's not hurting someone else that is using the system. I think some people are missing the point here. If it's my money, why can't I have the option of getting it up front? I'm not taking someone else's money, I'm just keeping my own which logically should not harm those using it.

So can anyone actually tell me how allowing some to opt out will hurt those that don't?

Do you know how compounding interest works? Do you know how one generation can pay for another and the ebb and flow with that? Its a pretty simple answer.

[Bob]

Many believe in social safety nets. Most do actually. Any time there's a question of reform, however, people lose their minds. Some want all the current programs (if not more) in place and want their status assured and funded. Some are ok with the current programs existing but want reforms in this and that. Some support these programs if they're voluntary, meaning optional to the people they're meant to be for. Some are against these programs but want them phased out over time so those who rely on them aren't hurt by sudden policy changes. And some think that they're absolutely unconstitutional and immoral to be forced to pay into.

1. Should citizens be allowed to opt out of programs like social security and keep what they would pay into it if it is their wish to spend, save or invest it how they want?

2. Should citizens be given the option to paying into welfare programs, meant to help others besides themselves, without it being mandated?

I believe national welfarism is unconstitutional. Because, well, it is. But it seems to me that if a "social safety net" is in place like SS that people pay into their whole lives that they should be given the option of not participating as it's their earnings. Likewise, chipping in to welfare programs is often spoken of as a moral obligation to help the disadvantaged, but charity in my opinion can't be compulsory.

If a welfare state is unavoidable it just seems rational to give people more options than losing half a paycheck at gunpoint. If one wants insurance services like social security or unemployment, then they can pay into it now for later on, or they can keep what they earn and invest it how they want while accepting the responsibility of their choices. If one needs welfare programs like food stamps then they could pull from a donation pool of fellow citizens who chose to pay into it.

Authoritarians tend to want a cradle to grave, womb to tomb government and libertarians tend to want a rugged individualism without coercion. So wouldn't it make sense to accommodate both philosophies?

In few words, I am in agreement. Good post.

[iustitia]

In this country I think Common and Peter are right. Individualism and diversity come at a steep price. We've allowed any sense of commonality not grounded in materialism to slowly erode. If you allow people to opt out many will thus killing the program.

Hold up, D, would you not agree that these social programs are the offspring of progressivism and thus inherently materialist to begin with? The idea that the state needs to provide your financial wellbeing, or take care of your finances, that seems more materialist than allowing someone to just keep what they've earned. Local authority or community looking after their own, no, I don't think that's materialism. That's being a good neighbor and good Samaritan. But forcing a nation to pay into an insurance plan seems more materialist than allowing personal responsibility. I understand you're not the biggest supporter of individualism, but materialism can certainly be collectivist as much as individualist, no?

[metheron]

Hold up, D, would you not agree that these social programs are the offspring of progressivism and thus inherently materialist to begin with? The idea that the state needs to provide your financial wellbeing, or take care of your finances, that seems more materialist than allowing someone to just keep what they've earned. Local authority or community looking after their own, no, I don't think that's materialism. That's being a good neighbor and good Samaritan. But forcing a nation to pay into an insurance plan seems more materialist than allowing personal responsibility. I understand you're not the biggest supporter of individualism, but materialism can certainly be collectivist as much as individualist, no?

I would agree with this here. But I choose to be a part of the greatest country in the world. MY vision of that is one that doesn't let people die in the streets or from starvation. Not relying on if a charity or neighbor might help out. Now I agree this has flaws, but it is the kind of world that I would like to be a part of.

[Bob]

The answer is no individuals cant be allowed to opt out, the programs are built on full participation with everyone sharing the benefits as eligible.
Making it voluntary only means the people of means dont have to pay into it, which is the same as killing it.

You need to read Bill's book. I mean that.

I think you might be saved.

http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Government-Like-nonvoters-manifesto/dp/1553695739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425942409&sr=1-1&keywords=There+is+no+government+like+no+government

[Bob]

That was one of paul ryans plans to kill social security, allow people to opt into 401ks he knew damn well that would kill SS which was his goal.

This country is in the process of bankrupting itself. Democrats are more than helping, they are shoving us off the cliff.

[Bob]

You miss the whole point, the entire program is based on 100% participation, with everyone having a benefit upon eligibility.

Do you believe in cost / benefit analysis.

[Peter1469]

No modern society is going to end all social programs. I guess it is an interesting topic to toss around.

[Captain Obvious]

No modern society is going to end all social programs. I guess it is an interesting topic to toss around.

Materially or virtually?

What does Russia, China, North Korea provide for their inept?