[Clubber]

>I think there needs to be a lot more nuance with the word "deregulate" because there are many regulations and some should be gotten rid of and some shouldn't.

I think that's the core issue with most of our political dialog. "Regulations are bad." The person saying it is thinking A, B, and C and is probably right. The person hearing it is thinking D, E, and F and is also probably right. They aren't even talking about the same thing. It's no wonder they can't come to common ground.

"Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

To your point, words certainly matter.

[leetcrew]

> "Socialism is bad," and "Don't touch my social security," can be uttered by the same individual because when he thinks about socialism he thinks Castro nationalizing all US industry in Cuba, not Social Security Insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

or the person may see the contradiction clearly and oppose the idea of social security benefits, while also being opposed to having it clawed back after they've spent their entire working life paying into the system.

[ruined]

Social security is not an account you individually pay into and then draw from later, it is a wealth transfer program that taxes presently working individuals to support presently retired individuals.

[nybble41]

You are correct. Nonetheless, those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan under the assumption that they would one day be able to take their place as beneficiaries. They gave up significant amounts of money which could have been invested toward their own retirement to pay those SS taxes. Simply ripping it away without compensation is neither fair nor realistic.

[itsumoiru]

> those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan...

No, they didn't acquiesce to anything. They were required to pay whether they wanted to or not.

[nybble41]

I didn't mean to imply there was anything like voluntary consent involved. I'm on your side here. But there is popular support for this program which wouldn't exist if it were presented purely as a wealth transfer with no upside for those forced to pay in. They gloss over the fact that paying SS taxes doesn't formally entitle you to any future benefits, but in practice cancelling it without offering some compensation to those who paid so much in would amount to political suicide.

[0des]

This brings up and interesting question: If more people enter the work force and pay taxes every year, how is SS (as im told) "drying up"? I don't doubt that it's dwindling, however, what happened?

[nybble41]

In 1945 there were 42 workers paying SS taxes for every retiree collecting benefits. For equal pay / retirement income after SS taxes, each worker only needs to provide 2.3%.

Today (actually since 2009) that ratio is three workers per retiree. Each worker has to provide 33%. By 2050 the ratio is projected to fall to two-to-one.

You can find the historical ratios here: https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html

[leetcrew]

yes and no. that is how it's actually implemented, but from the outside it does look similar to a defined contribution plan. you pay into it during your working years and then receive a monthly payment in retirement. the payment amount is related (albeit not directly proportional) to the amount you paid in.

in any case, I feel pretty confident saying that most people see social security as a deal where they pay in now to receive benefits later during retirement. they may or may not think very hard about the fact that they might be far better off if they had the option to put the money in a 401k/IRA instead, but they surely would not be happy to pay now without the expectation of getting something later.

that's all just to say that it's not a "haha gotem" moment when you find someone close to retirement who "opposes socialism" but doesn't want to see social security go away (for them).

[Clubber]

>that's all just to say that it's not a "haha gotem" moment when you find someone close to retirement who "opposes socialism" but doesn't want to see social security go away (for them).

It wasn't an attempt at a "haha gotem," sorry if it came out that way. It was more of an example of the irony of being for and against the same concept by having different understanding of the meaning than someone else.

SSI was probably a bad example, anything useful will fit. "Socialism bad," but "please fix the potholes in my road, pick up my trash, put bad guys in jail, put out that forest fire, keep the shipping lanes clear, etc. etc." All those a person could like and they are socialistic, but ask that same person what their opinion on socialism, he thinks Castro nationalizing US industry in Cuba, not all the service he finds infinitely useful day to day.

I guess that's the complicated way of saying we should talk about political ideas in a much more narrow sense, like "lets lower the medicare age to 55; we're already paying for the most expensive demographic," rather than "Socialism good."

[lutorm]

I dunno, it seems the people who say "socialism is bad" these days use it to explicitly mean those contexts that have little to do with actual socialism, like paid parental leave or universal healthcare. They may not be including SSI there, but for all intents and purposes they could, with the crucial difference that SSI is something that exists and the proposed "socialist" policies don't.

[lozenge]

Well, SSI, Medicare and Medicaid aren't socialism by any, let's say, "internationally recognised" definition.