You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
People Who Get Social Security Benefits Without Having Children Are Free Riders
2019-01-22
[Federalist] Social Security has a huge free-rider problem. To illustrate, imagine two couples, the Nukes (as in a nuclear family) and the Dinks (as in "double income, no kids"). The Nukes always dreamed of having a large family. But they are hampered by the double burden of paying for the Social Security subsidies of the last generation while they pay for the upbringing of the next generation.

The cost of daycare is roughly equivalent to the later cost of college. The Nukes end up spending $233,610 per child to raise them on top of the $600,000 they pay in Social Security taxes. Those taxes pay for current retirees and are not saved for either the Nukes or the Dinks. On top of that, Mrs. Nuke lost $230,000 in lifetime earnings because of her decision to bear children.

The Dinks, in contrast, avoided all of those child-raising and college expenses. Mrs. Dink stayed in the workforce her entire career, yielding a much higher salary. The Dinks might pay exactly as much in Social Security taxes as the Nukes did. But when the Dinks and the Nukes retire, both the Nukes and the Dinks will rely on the taxes collected from the Nuke children in order to fund their retirement. The Dinks might retire in relative luxury with all the money saved from skipping children; the Nukes might barely scrape by.
Posted by:Besoeker

#17  I am 26 years old. I will never, ever, ever, collect a single penny from Social Security unless I become horrifically disabled at a very young age. By the time I am 62, the program will not exist, and the money I have put in will have been spent by the old people collecting right now. Social Security is a ponzi scheme. If people actually cared about stopping it, everybody under 40 would stop paying NOW, and then be told they would never collect. Because they won't anyways. Instead, we'll stretch it out until the very last year before it all collapses, when the inevitable happens, and then everyone will lose their shit.
Posted by: Vernal Hatrack2366   2019-01-22 17:18  

#16  If there was a list of things legal for the state to do which it's owners, the citizens cannot do. I think it would shock.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2019-01-22 16:17  

#15  ...compounded by the Johnson administration which did away with 'two books' and treated SS taxes as a pool to be spent on the Great Society programs. As long as the government does it, its not embezzlement.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-01-22 16:07  

#14  Patently imbecillically stupid and not even wrong.

The problem is that SS is a ponzi scheme, there is zero actual investment. If you're ponzi scheme relies on increasing the population density then it's vastly more damaging to the country than just financially!
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2019-01-22 15:41  

#13  In Fact Gen X and later has been paying in with zero expectation of getting any payout.

Boomers are free riders in this ponzi scheme because they have lived longer than initial projects and had fewer kids than the scheme demanded.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-01-22 13:50  

#12  There's the problem, Thing. You get 1.4 trillion from Microsoft and you're still $18.6 trillion in debt. Where are you gonna get the rest? And what about all those jobs at Microsoft that are gonna be lost? You gonna set up a food bank for those people?
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-01-22 13:49  

#11  If you pay in your whole life how can you be a free rider?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2019-01-22 13:48  

#10  If y'all wanted the country to break even y'all should have thought twice about breaking entire industries. Now I find myself thinking "Don't Microsoft and Alphabet have a combined net worth north of 1.4 trillion? Why not give nationalizing them a shot?"
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2019-01-22 13:17  

#9  I am sure the DINKS complain about paying high school taxes when they have no children.
Posted by: airandee   2019-01-22 12:13  

#8  It was always a pyramid scheme.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2019-01-22 11:01  

#7  Social Security was never anything but a rip-off. Dinks get ripped off just like Nukes so they deserve what little crumbs the government will let them have just like the Nukes. But it's just like a democrat/communist to covet what someone else has.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2019-01-22 10:57  

#6  Not to mention my tax $ funding Planned Parenthood genocide.
Posted by: Warthog   2019-01-22 09:49  

#5  I don't recall being offered a choice about whether to enroll in SS. They just started taking the money. Since I was forced into the program, I don't owe the Federalist or any other pundit squat.
Posted by: Spolump Pholuck7341   2019-01-22 08:27  

#4  1. Single people pay social security tax in an imposed contract that implied remittance when a certain age was reached.

2. Singles pay property and income taxes to support a primary and secondary education system which they put no burden on.

3. Singles pay health insurance packages that include group costs for pediatric care of the group members who have children.

Who's the real free rider? /rhet question
Posted by: Procopius2k   2019-01-22 07:24  

#3  Was having kids part of the original agreement? In writing? No? Then how bout those who paid in are entitled to collect?

Exactly! More 'Needs Based' communism.
Posted by: Besoeker   2019-01-22 07:18  

#2  Was having kids part of the original agreement? In writing? No? Then how bout those who paid in are entitled to collect?
Posted by: M. Murcek   2019-01-22 07:11  

#1  Another thought exercise; a new college graduate with 50k in student loans and a good job making 60k a year pays Social Security $$ to Warren Buffet.
Posted by: Airandee   2019-01-22 06:20  

00:01