This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The progressivity is in the payout structure.
Let's take 3 people. Follow along if you iike there's a quick calculator here. For simplicity lets assume all 3 were born on Jan 1, 1980 will retire in January of 2050 and remain single their entire lives. We'll assume they earn the same amount after adjusting for inflation for the 35 years that are relevant for calculating social security benefits.
Alice and Bob's incomes were chosen at the bend points of the PIA calculation, incomes in between any of those three people's will be some mix of those.
Yes, social security taxes are flat, but the benefit is enormously progressive.
I'm afraid this math is not mathing.
You're right, I started writing with the full (employer and employee contribution) then split them and forgot to edit the percentage. She contributes 6.2% or $837 and her employer contributes another 6.2% on her behalf. The full contribution per year is 12.4% or $1,674.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, US social security is a redistribution program stealthing as a forced savings program ("and that's a good thing," many progressives/leftists might add). As if a forced savings program isn't bad enough.
Given the strongly progressive nature of SS disbursements, financially literate high-earners are far worse off than an alternate universe where they just took their social security contributions and their employer matches to go home and invest on their own, even in something vanilla like short, intermediate, or long-term treasuries depending on duration appetite and the shape of the yield curve. The difference becomes even more drastic if one throws the option of investing in equities into the mix.
Unfortunately, while "financially-literate high earners" might be able to outperform on returns, I can't see a scenario where Alice, who likely isn't terribly financially literate or prone to long-term decisionmaking (admittedly, this is generalizing heavily about the lower class, but is probably right in aggregate) doesn't get convinced to invest either in high-risk, flashy strategies (NFTs, bro! Can't go tits up!) or outright frauds (Enron, etc).
If retirees ends up destitute from mismanagement of the funds they supposedly saved on their on behalf, it's easily a sympathetic case (and large voting block) that we'll end up bailing them out anyway. I think privatizing would really need a mechanism to prevent this sort of outcome. For better or worse I could point to how the SEC defines "accredited investor" to only allow rich folks to invest in certain poorly-regulated securities. Is Alice prevented from making those sweet returns? Yes. But if high-income Charlie loses his shirt the median voter is just going to laugh, not support a bailout. It's not a good definition, but it seems to work in that context.
If the only options are index funds covering the S&P 500, msci world ex us, Russell 2000, Lehman bond, and average cost of Treasury bonds it's really hard to lose your shirt.
The government is already admistering a plan with those options. Just make the default option a target date retirement plan based on birthday and 99.9% of people will have an extremely hard time screwing it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link