drsmooth wrote:
The government is not 'giving' people their Social Security benefits. People contribute towards their Social Security benefits. People earn Social Security benefits.

This speaks to the heart of the problem. It's not helpful that SS is a scheme to "bank" retirement monies. It would serve society better as insurance, not a passbook account or even an annuity. Let the money go to those who need it.

Dammit, who's the commie here?!

Less than the average funeral.

"I don't want to be a burden on my loved ones"

If only Saint Reagan didn't "re-allocate" trillions from Social Security to cover up the failure of his "trickle down" supply side policies, then we'd be having our normal Christie dabate... Cake? Pie? Cake pie? Pie cake?

Pennsylvania has a municipality problem

TomatoPie wrote:This speaks to the heart of the problem. It's not helpful that SS is a scheme to "bank" retirement monies. It would serve society better as insurance, not a passbook account or even an annuity. Let the money go to those who need it.

You should be relieved, because Social Security is not, and never has been, a 'bank' for participant or employer contributions. No one's benefit is a function of their contributions. Benefits are function of covered earnings.

Please understand that your persistent confusion about this very basic element of what is arguably the most fundamental of American social programs may well make any observer question your grasp of other fundamental matters about which you have professed knowledge, like pizza, or economics

TenuredVulture wrote:Less than the average funeral.

the Soc Sec death benefit is kind of weird.

I saw a bigass electronic billboard ad for a 'budget cremation' the other day (here in the greater Hartford CT capital district area): $999. My dated market scan of fees for such services tells me that's around 1/3 of prices prevailing here 4-5 years ago.

Incinerating human remains is the new market inefficiency

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:This speaks to the heart of the problem. It's not helpful that SS is a scheme to "bank" retirement monies. It would serve society better as insurance, not a passbook account or even an annuity. Let the money go to those who need it.

You should be relieved, because Social Security is not, and never has been, a 'bank' for participant or employer contributions. No one's benefit is a function of their contributions. Benefits are function of covered earnings.

Please understand that your persistent confusion about this very basic element of what is arguably the most fundamental of American social programs may well make any observer question your grasp of other fundamental matters about which you have professed knowledge, like pizza, or economics

You're just not going to talk about the actual issue, are you? Really, you're generally capable of making a useful argument, so this is disappointing.

Americans perceive their SS bennies as based on contributions/covered earnings - that is why they feel they have "banked" or "earned" the entitlement. No one is arguing with your facts about what SS is.

And - again - for a broke system, it's not good for the scrappy youngsters here to be subsidizing my retirement as they surely will be. SS needs more than tweaking - it needs an overhaul.

it's not broke. guess we fundamentally disagree on that.

LOL Belarus

Under the new law, people who haven't worked for at least six months -- and therefore haven't paid taxes - must pay the government at least $252.

Those who don't pay could be detained, and forced to undertake community service.

In unrelated news:
http://belarusdigest.com/story/lie-full-employment-7661

According to the National Statistics Committee, there were 28,200 unemployed in Belarus at the end of 2011. This is 0.6 per cent of the total number of the economically active population. It means that the unemployment rate fell by more than 14 per cent in 2011 compared with the 2001 - the year of the deepest economic crisis in Belarus.
...
This statistics trick has a simple explanation. The National Statistics Committee counts as unemployed only those who register with employment agencies. Those who are actually unemployed but do not register with employment agencies are not included in the statistics.

that's one way to drop the unemployment numbers

Now that I think about it, it's probably just a way to extract taxes from the large sector of the economy that operates off the books. Perhaps they should address why everyone works off the books...

Belarus is the last former Soviet republic in Europe still ruled by the first guy who took over after the USSR fell apart. Economy is still state run. The political system is thoroughly authoritarian. The dream of world socialism hasn't died in Minsk.

On the bright side, Putin appreciates Lukashenko's repressive style so Russia won't invade like Ukraine or Georgia.

TomatoPie wrote: And - again - for a broke system, it's not good for the scrappy youngsters here to be subsidizing my retirement as they surely will be. SS needs more than tweaking - it needs an overhaul.

social security can be 'fixed' by pushing eligibility dates for 100% benefits back a few years, for beneficiaries who will reach those new age thresholds many years from now.

It can be fixed with a few hours of attention by reasonably competent legislative aides.

It cannot be fixed by blustering politicians desperate to latch on to a policy lifebuoy in a way that attracts the attention of deep-pocketed campaign fluffers.

2 of my grandparents came over from Belarus. It could have been me.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote: And - again - for a broke system, it's not good for the scrappy youngsters here to be subsidizing my retirement as they surely will be. SS needs more than tweaking - it needs an overhaul.

social security can be 'fixed' by pushing eligibility dates for 100% benefits back a few years, for beneficiaries who will reach those new age thresholds many years from now.

It can be fixed with a few hours of attention by reasonably competent legislative aides.

It cannot be fixed by blustering politicians desperate to latch on to a policy lifebuoy in a way that attracts the attention of deep-pocketed campaign fluffers.

Not defending Christie here.

TomatoPie wrote:Not defending Christie here.

Understood, and I didn't mean to pick exclusively on him; plenty of politicians, of varying ideological affiliations, are lining up to 'reform' Social Security.

"overhaul" suggests fundamental precepts need to be upended.

Not really.

The fundamental precepts of the existing program aren't even understood very well, maybe especially by people most eager to "overhaul" them. (At least I like to think their enthusiasm for twiddling programmatic dials stems from confusion rather than from baser motives. Call me an optimist). The basics merit revisiting. I'm not suggesting we do that here, among other reasons because it would be boring beyond endurance.

For example, a benefit earned is not necessarily, and need not be, a benefit wholly financed during the working life of the individual who has earned

We did it!

This month's South Jersey magazine has a bunch of charts with facts about 23 high schools I guess mostly in Burlington and Camden counties. The highest ranking school, Haddonfield, has an average SAT (reading+math+writing) of 1,768. The lowest, Camden, has an average SAT of 1,014. The highest per pupil expenditure, Camden, is $25,575. The lowest per pupil expenditure, Haddonfield, is $15,344.

Correlation between average SAT score and per pupil spending at a solid -0.41.

jerseyhoya wrote:This month's South Jersey magazine has a bunch of charts with facts about 23 high schools I guess mostly in Burlington and Camden counties. The highest ranking school, Haddonfield, has an average SAT (reading+math+writing) of 1,768. The lowest, Camden, has an average SAT of 1,014. The highest per pupil expenditure, Camden, is $25,575. The lowest per pupil expenditure, Haddonfield, is $15,344.

Correlation between average SAT score and per pupil spending at a solid -0.41.

That correlation is an indictment of _(fill in your favorite social/cultural/economic phenomena. Please limit your list to 15 entries)___