Democratic Socialism - The Future of Our Country?

#127
#127
Vol8188 said:
That’s not remotely what it meant. If you truly believe that, why was a constitutional amendment required over 100 years later to actually tax people?
Click to expand...
It wasn't. It was direct i.e. income tax that was allowable with the amendment.
 
#129
#129
EasternVol said:
That's interesting. How is public social spending defined?
Click to expand...
government programs through public funding. Things like health, unemployment, maternity leave, etc. you could attribute it to the US being more expensive, for example we spend double on health per person than Nordic
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#133
#133
BigOrangeMojo said:
I read through the chain. Hog was complaining about how difficult it was for manufacturers to invest in America due to excessive and onerous federal regulations. You provided these 3 CHIPS subsidy examples as a counterpoint to his argument...
Click to expand...
color me shocked
 
#134
#134
BigOrangeMojo said:
I read through the chain. Hog was complaining about how difficult it was for manufacturers to invest in America due to excessive and onerous federal regulations. You provided these 3 CHIPS subsidy examples as a counterpoint to his argument...
Click to expand...

Yeah I pointed out that we were subsidizing manufacturing in response to his uninformed declaration of "draconian" rules that were stopping companies from doing so in the US.
 
#135
#135
BigOrangeMojo said:
Social security is the biggest form of wealth redistribution on the planet today. Middle to higher earners pay in and get a negative ROIC while those who make less get subsidized with a return thay exceeds inflation and/or treasury note return...
Click to expand...
I've ran this stuff through GROK before......huge numbers of people get more in benefits than what they pay in taxes.
SS steals wealth away from people and will (along with Medicare) bankrupt the country but according to the left it's an awesome system.



======================================================

approximately what per cent of retirees get more in social security benefits than they paid in taxes?


GROK:
According to the most rigorous and up-to-date analyses that separate Social Security benefits only (not combined with Medicare), approximately 90–95% of current retirees receive more in lifetime Social Security benefits than they paid in Social Security payroll taxes (including the employer share and interest).

Here are the key sources that allow this precise estimate:

1. Urban Institute (2023) – explicit distributional table for Social Security alone

In the full 2023 report tables (Table 6 in the appendix), the Urban Institute shows lifetime Social Security taxes vs. benefits for hypothetical workers retiring in 2020, broken down by earnings level and birth cohort.For workers born 1956–1965 (today’s ages 60–69, i.e., current or near-retirees):
Earnings level% of retirees who get more in SS benefits than they paid in SS taxes
Very low (25th percentile)100%
Low (50th percentile)100%
Medium (75th percentile)100%
High (90th percentile)98%
Maximum earners~30% (only the top ~5–7% of earners get less)

→ Overall: ~93–95% get more than they paid (present value at retirement, 2% real interest, including spousal/survivor benefits).

2. SSA Office of the Actuary / CRFB microsimulation (2022–2024)

The Social Security Administration’s own MINT model (used by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) estimates:
  • 94% of retirees born 1951–1960 (today aged 65–74) receive more in Social Security benefits than lifetime contributions + interest.
  • 92% of all current retirees (including those already 80+) are net recipients.
  • Only the top 6–8% of lifetime earners (roughly the top income decile) pay more than they get back.
3. C. Eugene Steuerle / Karen Smith (Urban Institute) – long-term series

The most widely cited chart in policy circles (updated annually) shows that for single males retiring at 65:
Retirement year% getting more than paid
198068%
200086%
202094%
2025 (projected)96%

For couples the figure is even higher (~98%).

Bottom-line answer
Approximately 92–95% of current U.S. retirees receive more in lifetime Social Security benefits than they and their employers paid in Social Security payroll taxes (adjusted to present value with a realistic interest rate).

The only retirees who do not get more back are concentrated in the top 5–8% of lifetime earners—mostly maximum-wage workers with no low-earning spouse and short life expectancy. Everyone else is a net beneficiary from the program.
 
Last edited:
#136
#136
MontyPython said:
"Socialism" largely has a dirty reputation here in the US. But is it really so bad and are we perhaps actually pre-conditioned to move towards a Democratic Socialist nation-state someday?

With the election of Zohran Mamdani (spellcheck... got it), an avowed Democratic Socialist, as the new NYC mayor, Trump's head clearly just about exploded - so now he's lobbing all sorts of threats in which the Feds can/could harm NYC (the largest city in our country). Classy Donald as always.

Anyway, I pose this question: What's so "wrong" about Democratic Socialism? Its basic premise is as follows: Strong welfare states, high taxes, and extensive public services (e.g., universal healthcare, free education, strong unions), achieved through democratic elections—not full state ownership of production (as in classic socialism).

The haves versus the have-nots here in our country... a recipe for hate, distrust and crime. And why shouldn't we have universal healthcare - are you more deserving of *living* than someone who has less money than you? Same with education... wouldn't our country be better with *smarter* people in general? Yes, methinks.

Now I get it: Your gut reaction is HIGHER TAXES... GO F YOURSELF, MP. I'm with you... kind of.

So I'm a small business owner. I feel like I work harder than your average Joe... I'm out there hustling like this Saturday morning... meeting up with potential clients and doing estimates. Why should I pay more taxes and how would this motivate me to work harder? I get it.

But here's the thing... it's not just all about money. It's about lifestyle, too. It's about living in a society that fosters HAPPINESS, right?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pretty sure somebody said that back in the day.

Take a look at the Top-10 "Happiest Countries". I've been to several of them. In fact, my mom was from one of them.
Top 10 happiest countries:
  1. Finland
  2. Denmark
  3. Iceland
  4. Sweden
  5. Israel
  6. Netherlands
  7. Norway
  8. Luxembourg
  9. Switzerland
  10. Australia
Democratic Socialist countries dominate, but not exclusively—and not because of socialism per se. Key drivers: social trust, low corruption, freedom, GDP/capita, healthy life expectancy—not welfare spending alone.

In the grand scheme of things, our big cities and the left-coast generally lead trends in our economy and our social policies. For all you California bashers, don't forget that if California were its own independent country, it'd have the 4th largest economy in the world. Fact. Regardless, with NYC electing a socialist, it begs the question: Are we moving in that direction? And for those here diametrically opposed to all things socialist, it begs the question: why?

And just one more thing... if you are morally opposed to socialism, I'm happy to receive your Social Security Benefits directly (DING DING DING... SOCIALISM). Just lemme know.
Click to expand...
Good Lord. Social Security is an annuity. You can buy them privately and they will pay a fixed sum the rest of your life. It's government sponsored of course. It's a contract that the government forces you to buy. It's not welfare. Personally, I would have opted out if I could when I was young but I didn't have that option.

Your list of the 10 happiest countries include the Nordic countries that, last time I checked, they had the highest suicide rates in the world. Happy, happy, happy. Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Iceland has like 50 people that live there.

Lastly, democrat socialism is just the latest re-naming of communism. A time honored tradition of changing names to try and fool people into trying something that they previously rejected. All communist know that if they get the country to try it, they will be stuck with it from then on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, UT_Dutchman, Cod and 1 other person
#137
#137
Democratic Socialism is just a feel good term for the quasi communist camel nose already under the tent. It will only consume more and more resources. Flashy smiles, we know how to do socialism the right way, everyone will have all they’ll ever need…then the sledge hammer of reality sets in. It’s a big reason European citizens are having a come apart in multiple countries over the continuous heavy hand of central planning in Brussels. They see where it’s going and the govts are not on their side.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, norrislakevol, Vol since 77 and 1 other person
#138
#138
Volnanza said:
Good Lord. Social Security is an annuity. You can buy them privately and they will pay a fixed sum the rest of your life. It's government sponsored of course. It's a contract that the government forces you to buy. It's not welfare. Personally, I would have opted out if I could when I was young but I didn't have that option.

Your list of the 10 happiest countries include the Nordic countries that, last time I checked, they had the highest suicide rates in the world. Happy, happy, happy. Sweden is the rape capital of Europe. Iceland has like 50 people that live there.

Lastly, democrat socialism is just the latest re-naming of communism. A time honored tradition of changing names to try and fool people into trying something that they previously rejected. All communist know that if they get the country to try it, they will be stuck with it from then on.
Click to expand...

Damn, bro. Grand prize for ignorant post of the day!
 
#139
#139
jmacvols1 said:
I've ran this stuff through GROK before......huge numbers of people get more in benefits than what they pay in taxes.
SS steals wealth away from people and will (along with Medicare) bankrupt the country but according to the left it's an awesome system.



======================================================

approximately what per cent of retirees get more in social security benefits than they paid in taxes?


GROK:
According to the most rigorous and up-to-date analyses that separate Social Security benefits only (not combined with Medicare), approximately 90–95% of current retirees receive more in lifetime Social Security benefits than they paid in Social Security payroll taxes (including the employer share and interest).

Here are the key sources that allow this precise estimate:

1. Urban Institute (2023) – explicit distributional table for Social Security alone

In the full 2023 report tables (Table 6 in the appendix), the Urban Institute shows lifetime Social Security taxes vs. benefits for hypothetical workers retiring in 2020, broken down by earnings level and birth cohort.For workers born 1956–1965 (today’s ages 60–69, i.e., current or near-retirees):
Earnings level% of retirees who get more in SS benefits than they paid in SS taxes
Very low (25th percentile)100%
Low (50th percentile)100%
Medium (75th percentile)100%
High (90th percentile)98%
Maximum earners~30% (only the top ~5–7% of earners get less)

→ Overall: ~93–95% get more than they paid (present value at retirement, 2% real interest, including spousal/survivor benefits).

2. SSA Office of the Actuary / CRFB microsimulation (2022–2024)

The Social Security Administration’s own MINT model (used by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) estimates:
  • 94% of retirees born 1951–1960 (today aged 65–74) receive more in Social Security benefits than lifetime contributions + interest.
  • 92% of all current retirees (including those already 80+) are net recipients.
  • Only the top 6–8% of lifetime earners (roughly the top income decile) pay more than they get back.
3. C. Eugene Steuerle / Karen Smith (Urban Institute) – long-term series

The most widely cited chart in policy circles (updated annually) shows that for single males retiring at 65:
Retirement year% getting more than paid
198068%
200086%
202094%
2025 (projected)96%

For couples the figure is even higher (~98%).Bottom-line answerApproximately 92–95% of current U.S. retirees receive more in lifetime Social Security benefits than they and their employers paid in Social Security payroll taxes (adjusted to present value with a realistic interest rate).

The only retirees who do not get more back are concentrated in the top 5–8% of lifetime earners—mostly maximum-wage workers with no low-earning spouse and short life expectancy. Everyone else is a net beneficiary from the program.
Click to expand...
That's quite a post. One little bugaboo though. Contributions + interest is misleading. From the thing I have read, the interest could be 2% or less. Very little earnings growth. In fact, factor in inflation at 3-5 % and you are losing money.

The other event that is going to have a major impact is when SS goes broke in about 5 years. Then everyone will take a 25 -35% cut in payments. SS is going broke because they pay a lot of money to cover benefits from those that never paid in and the government keeps expanding what they have to cover.

Good post though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#140
#140
Volnanza said:
That's quite a post. One little bugaboo though. Contributions + interest is misleading. From the thing I have read, the interest could be 2% or less. Very little earnings growth. In fact, factor in inflation at 3-5 % and you are losing money.

The other event that is going to have a major impact is when SS goes broke in about 5 years. Then everyone will take a 25 -35% cut in payments. SS is going broke because they pay a lot of money to cover benefits from those that never paid in and the government keeps expanding what they have to cover.

Good post though.
Click to expand...
I thing the last Trustee report has it going bankrupt end of 2032-33. My guess is they will not cut benefits, raise taxes nor reallocate money in the budget to make up for the expected 33% shortfall. Most likely will just borrow the money.

One other reason SS is going broke is by law any surplus collected by SSA has to be "loaned" to the Treasury and the Treasury in turn gives IOUs to SSA in the form of US bonds. That surplus money goes into the general fund and Congress spends it on things that have nothing to do with SS.
Over the years about 3 trillion of social security surplus money was loaned to the Treasury and squandered away leaving the so-called Trust Fund full of these worthless IOUs...


GROK - "The total amount loaned over the program's history (since 1937) is not a single fixed figure published by SSA, as securities are continually issued, redeemed, and rolled over. However, it equals the accumulated asset reserves in the trust funds at any point, which represent the net sum of all historical surpluses (including compounded interest) minus any past deficits or redemptions.

Key historical totals from official SSA data and Trustees Reports:

PeriodAccumulated Reserves (Total Loaned to Treasury)Notes/Source
End of 2021$2.91 trillionHistorical peak.

congress.gov +1
End of 2023~$2.79–2.83 trillionPre-2024 decline.

thehill.com +1
End of 2024$2.721 trillionDown from $2.788 trillion at start 2024 start due to ongoing deficits (costs exceeded income by ~$67 billion).

verisk.com +1
As of November 2025 (latest available)~$2.65–2.70 trillion (estimated)Reserves are declining ~$150–200 billion annually in recent years; exact monthly figures are published by Treasury but not detailed here.

ssa.gov +1
In 2024 alone, ~$1.604 trillion in new securities were issued (purchased by the trust funds), while ~$1.671 trillion were redeemed to cover deficits—net contributing to the reserve decline.

The cumulative loaned amount peaked at $2.91 trillion because surpluses were largest from the 1983 reforms through ~2010 (driven by payroll tax increases and baby boomer contributions). Since 2021, annual deficits have required net redemptions, reducing the outstanding loan to Treasury."
 
#141
#141
Volnanza said:
It's not welfare.
Click to expand...
SS is welfare.
SS works on bend points that are progressive like the income tax. Bend points take money from much higher earners and gives it to low and middle earners so that have get a higher percent replacement check. Dems did not want to put SS tax into the general fund because that would make it obvious it would be welfare (it works like food stamps). So they created a new fund to put SS taxes in and called this new find a "Trust Fund" to trick people into thinking this fund was full of cash....fool you into thinking your SS taxes are held in this "Trust Fund" then given back to you when you retire. SS "Trust Fund" is not like a true truth fund.


GROK =

Social Security in the United States is fundamentally a welfare program, even though most Americans hate that label. Here's why it's accurate to call it welfare, backed by the facts:

1. It’s government-run wealth redistribution (the textbook definition of welfare)
  • Workers pay payroll taxes (FICA) during their careers.
  • That money does not go into personal accounts (despite what people think). It goes straight to current retirees (pay-as-you-go).
  • Today’s workers are taxed to pay today’s beneficiaries. This is intergenerational transfer—classic welfare redistribution.
2. Benefits are not proportional to contributions
  • Low-wage workers get a much higher replacement rate (benefits ÷ past earnings) than high earners.
    • Example (2025 figures):
      • Someone earning $30k/year gets ~56% replacement
      • Someone earning $160k/year gets ~23% replacement
  • This is deliberate progressive redistribution built into the benefit formula (bend points).
3. Many recipients get back far more than they paid in
  • CBO and SSA data show:
    • Low earners: often get 3–5× what they paid in (with interest)
    • Median earners: ~1.5–2× return
    • High earners: often get less than they paid in
  • Source: SSA’s own “money’s worth” studies and Urban Institute analyses.
4. It’s means-adjusted in practice
  • Benefits are taxable for higher-income retirees (up to 85% taxable).
  • Wealthy retirees effectively subsidize lower-income ones through the tax code.
5. Supreme Court ruled it’s not a contractual right (1960)
  • Flemming v. Nestor: Congress can change or eliminate benefits at any time. You have no legal ownership of “your” Social Security money.
  • This proves it’s a welfare program, not an insurance policy or savings account.
Why people deny it’s welfare
  • They paid FICA taxes, so they feel “entitled.”
  • It was marketed as “insurance” to avoid the welfare stigma in the 1930s.
  • Calling it “welfare” makes it sound like food stamps, but scale doesn’t change the mechanism.
Bottom line

Social Security is the largest welfare program in human history (~$1.5 trillion/year, 67 million beneficiaries). It’s just welfare that’s:
  • Mandatory
  • Payroll-tax funded
  • Politically untouchable because middle-class people get checks
If the government took 12.4% of your income and mailed checks to old people based on need-adjusted formulas, you’d call it welfare. That’s exactly what Social Security does.
 
Last edited:
#145
#145
socialism fails no matter what you want to call it

===========================================


GROK - there is a meaningful difference between socialism (in its classic or traditional sense) and democratic socialism, though the terms are sometimes blurred in casual discourse. Here's a clear breakdown:
1. Socialism (Traditional / Classic Socialism)Core Idea:

The means of production (factories, land, resources, major industries) are owned and controlled collectively — typically by the state or workers directly (via cooperatives or councils). Private ownership of capital is largely abolished or heavily restricted.Key Features:
  • State or collective ownership of industry, banking, utilities, etc.
  • Central planning of the economy (e.g., Soviet Union, Maoist China).
  • Often achieved through revolution or authoritarian means.
  • Goal: Eliminate class distinctions and private profit.
Examples (Historical):
  • Soviet Union (USSR)
  • Cuba under Fidel Castro
  • Venezuela under Chávez/Maduro (state-controlled oil, etc.)
Criticism:

Can lead to inefficiency, lack of innovation, and authoritarianism.
2. Democratic SocialismCore Idea:

Achieve socialist goals (equality, public ownership of key services, strong welfare state) through democratic means — elections, reforms, and parliamentary systems — without abolishing capitalism entirely.Key Features:
  • Mixed economy: Private enterprise exists, but key sectors (healthcare, education, utilities, sometimes banking) are publicly owned or heavily regulated.
  • Strong welfare state: Universal healthcare, free education, robust social safety nets.
  • Progressive taxation to fund social programs.
  • Worker rights and cooperatives encouraged, but not mandatory.
  • Rejects violent revolution; works within democracy.
Examples (Modern):
  • Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland) — often cited as models (though they prefer "social democracy").
  • Policies advocated by Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the U.S.
  • UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn (2015–2020)
Note:
Nordic leaders (e.g., Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen) have rejected the "socialist" label, calling their systems "market economies with strong welfare".
Key Differences Summary
AspectSocialismDemocratic Socialism
OwnershipState/worker ownership of most industryPublic ownership of key services, private sector remains
EconomyCentrally plannedMarket-based with regulation
Political SystemOften authoritarian or one-partyFully democratic, multi-party
Means of ChangeRevolution or state seizureElections, legislation, reform
Private PropertyLargely abolished (for capital)Protected (personal), restricted (corporate monopolies)
GoalClassless society via state controlEquality + welfare within democracy
Common Confusion
  • "Socialism" is often used as a scare word in U.S. politics to mean any government program (e.g., Medicare).
  • Democratic socialists want more public ownership and redistribution, but not a Soviet-style system.
  • Social democracy (Nordic model) is not the same as democratic socialism — the latter is more ideologically committed to eventual public ownership, while social democracy accepts capitalism with reforms.
Bottom Line
Socialism = State/worker control of the economy, often undemocratic.
Democratic Socialism = Socialist goals via democracy and gradual reform, preserving political freedom and markets.
Think: Cuba vs. Sweden — both left-wing, but worlds apart in practice.
 
#146
#146
LouderVol said:
they claim they don't want true socialism. they want "democratic" socialism. 100% different.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is just a name to trick folks into believing it is different. Both are anti-capitalism with the evolution leading to complete government control of the "have not" part of the population verses individual ownership and freedoms. Socialism of any form does not support individual choices and freedom.

The American version though and the only reason I can think of why really "rich" politicians push it, is that they feel they can implement something that can protect their fortunes. So selected capitalism - capitalism for me, but not for thee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#147
#147
The only reason to include "democratic" is for the notion that folks can vote for it or not. But once we start down that path - there is no turning back because it creates dependencies on handouts.

Plus, it allows wealthy folks that support it to keep their wealth rather than re-distribute it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#148
#148
jmacvols1 said:
SS is welfare.
SS works on bend points that are progressive like the income tax. Bend points take money from much higher earners and gives it to low and middle earners so that have get a higher percent replacement check. Dems did not want to put SS tax into the general fund because that would make it obvious it would be welfare (it works like food stamps). So they created a new fund to put SS taxes in and called this new find a "Trust Fund" to trick people into thinking this fund was full of cash....fool you into thinking your SS taxes are held in this "Trust Fund" then given back to you when you retire. SS "Trust Fund" is not like a true truth fund.


GROK =

Social Security in the United States is fundamentally a welfare program, even though most Americans hate that label. Here's why it's accurate to call it welfare, backed by the facts:

1. It’s government-run wealth redistribution (the textbook definition of welfare)
  • Workers pay payroll taxes (FICA) during their careers.
  • That money does not go into personal accounts (despite what people think). It goes straight to current retirees (pay-as-you-go).
  • Today’s workers are taxed to pay today’s beneficiaries. This is intergenerational transfer—classic welfare redistribution.
2. Benefits are not proportional to contributions
  • Low-wage workers get a much higher replacement rate (benefits ÷ past earnings) than high earners.
    • Example (2025 figures):
      • Someone earning $30k/year gets ~56% replacement
      • Someone earning $160k/year gets ~23% replacement
  • This is deliberate progressive redistribution built into the benefit formula (bend points).
3. Many recipients get back far more than they paid in
  • CBO and SSA data show:
    • Low earners: often get 3–5× what they paid in (with interest)
    • Median earners: ~1.5–2× return
    • High earners: often get less than they paid in
  • Source: SSA’s own “money’s worth” studies and Urban Institute analyses.
4. It’s means-adjusted in practice
  • Benefits are taxable for higher-income retirees (up to 85% taxable).
  • Wealthy retirees effectively subsidize lower-income ones through the tax code.
5. Supreme Court ruled it’s not a contractual right (1960)
  • Flemming v. Nestor: Congress can change or eliminate benefits at any time. You have no legal ownership of “your” Social Security money.
  • This proves it’s a welfare program, not an insurance policy or savings account.
Why people deny it’s welfare
  • They paid FICA taxes, so they feel “entitled.”
  • It was marketed as “insurance” to avoid the welfare stigma in the 1930s.
  • Calling it “welfare” makes it sound like food stamps, but scale doesn’t change the mechanism.
Bottom line

Social Security is the largest welfare program in human history (~$1.5 trillion/year, 67 million beneficiaries). It’s just welfare that’s:
  • Mandatory
  • Payroll-tax funded
  • Politically untouchable because middle-class people get checks
If the government took 12.4% of your income and mailed checks to old people based on need-adjusted formulas, you’d call it welfare. That’s exactly what Social Security does.
Click to expand...
Well then just refund me ALL of the $$$ that was stolen from me plus an average 5% return for oh, say 40 years and we will call it even. Yeah. I don't recall the amount of money people have to pay to get welfare, but I'm sure it's way less than what they took from me.

So when you pay for a service or a product, how can it be welfare? Think of insurance. You have to pay to get it. Is it welfare? Granted that we are forced into SS. You don't get a box to check to get out.
 
#149
#149
Volnanza said:
Well then just refund me ALL of the $$$ that was stolen from me plus an average 5% return for oh, say 40 years and we will call it even. Yeah. I don't recall the amount of money people have to pay to get welfare, but I'm sure it's way less than what they took from me.

So when you pay for a service or a product, how can it be welfare? Think of insurance. You have to pay to get it. Is it welfare? Granted that we are forced into SS. You don't get a box to check to get out.
Click to expand...
if the gov't would give me back all the money that it took from me in SS taxes plus at least a 6 percent return I would have gotten on it by investing it, then I would be out of the system and not be getting a SS check. It was announced last month SS beneficiaries will get a 2.8% COLA raise. I can get a better return on CDs at banks on my money than that.

People pay for "products" like SNAP and gov't housing yet these are considered welfare. SS works like SNAP in that it takes from one person to give to another. When it comes to SS, if SS were a "product" then overwhelmingly most people get more 'product' than what they paid for while the rest get less 'product' than what they paid for.

Who pays your insurance premiums....you or someone else?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top