Actually they both pay, not that it matters... since if neither did they'd be forced to make up the difference anyway so people could save for retirement.

Once again, the employee - not the employer - pays the social security tax.

Your entire position is a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense. Republicans hate poor people! Paul Ryan wants to destroy social security! So do business leaders even though they won't say it but I know they do! Social security is good until 2037 and if not that's not social security's fault!

Government-run pension programs require good governance, something that isn't exactly in abundance here. I'm glad things are working out so swimmingly for your little country with its 20 million people, but what works for 20 million isn't going to work for 310 million. Just as a ton of people can run a million dollar business, only very few have the wherewithal to run a billion dollar business and fucking nobody on Earth is smart enough to run a multi-trillion dollar business. The federal government of the US needs to come clean about their little Ponzi scheme and then butt the fuck out of people's lives.

And why did they loose all moral breaks that normally stop us from doing so ?

And who pays the employee? What I've said before is if something doesn't come around that replaces social security as a mandatory savings for retirement, employers are going to aim for the 10% unemployed who are willing to work for the wage minus the payroll tax. so if the government no longer gets it, and the employee no longer gets it, where do you think it goes to?

This is the problem with conservatives, in particular American conservatives, who pay some of the lowest taxes in the western world, yet they believe they have the right to whinge that they're getting raped by the government. Do you honestly believe government services are run by unicorns and pixie farts? Why don't you take a look at the good and honest battlers who are taking it tough to make ends meet and then come back with a serious face and tell me that you believe the rich are right to whinge about paying too much.

Uh... the employer pays the employee? I'm still not getting you here. I make whatever I make, and the government steals a certain amount of that. Then they demand that my employer matches that coerced contribution. The employer knows this is going to happen in advance, so they take it into consideration as the cost of hiring an employee to begin with. This, of course, affects what they're able or willing to pay an employee. So essentially, the worker ends up paying both his share and the employer's anyway. Sounds to me like you're insinuating that if social security is scrapped, wages will collapse or some such nonsense. If it were done away with, I imagine that at worst I would simply keep the amount the government has been taking from me all these years. At best, I could even see a raise if my boss appreciates me and just gives me what they've been paying to the feds. I'm sure you find that far-fetched, but it's less far-fetched than the idea that social security will not have collapsed by the time I reach retirement age.

Anyone who is forced to pay into a broken system that won't be there for them when they retire has a right to complain about it, I should think. This is the problem with leftists: they insist it is a fucking moral imperative that the government handle everything but never seem to get exercised when the system is wildly inefficient or downright broken. Whereas conservatives and libertarians, who don't even believe it is the place of the government to begin with, are the only ones who seem to think that if the government is going to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, it should at least do a halfway competent job at it. Do you not understand this? I don't think the government should run its services on unicorns and pixie farts; I think it shouldn't run most of them at all, at least not at at the federal level. This idea that the government is on the side of the little man is absolutely fucking laughable.

Not all of us disbelieve in efficiency, you know. I'd rather the system were sustainable, and i'm in the belief that our increased life expectancies mean we should have an increased working life expectancy

Sustainability is the name of the game for all social programs

Well, yeah. I'm obviously painting with broad strokes here, but it's just always baffled me that this isn't a huge issue for the left. It clearly should be, both for strategic reasons as well as ideological ones. These are the programs for which the left exists, and they are being horribly mismanaged. While that should outrage every tax-paying citizen, it should really burn liberals' asses. Instead they have allowed the government waste issue to be entirely cornered by the Tea Party, which the left hates and will make no common cause with, but if these programs were efficient and sustainable, the Tea Party and similar movements would basically cease to exist because... who could complain?

Uh... the employer pays the employee? I'm still not getting you here. I make whatever I make, and the government steals a certain amount of that. Then they demand that my employer matches that coerced contribution. The employer knows this is going to happen in advance, so they take it into consideration as the cost of hiring an employee to begin with. This, of course, affects what they're able or willing to pay an employee. So essentially, the worker ends up paying both his share and the employer's anyway. Sounds to me like you're insinuating that if social security is scrapped, wages will collapse or some such nonsense. If it were done away with, I imagine that at worst I would simply keep the amount the government has been taking from me all these years. At best, I could even see a raise if my boss appreciates me and just gives me what they've been paying to the feds. I'm sure you find that far-fetched, but it's less far-fetched than the idea that social security will not have collapsed by the time I reach retirement age.

Anyone who is forced to pay into a broken system that won't be there for them when they retire has a right to complain about it, I should think. This is the problem with leftists: they insist it is a fucking moral imperative that the government handle everything but never seem to get exercised when the system is wildly inefficient or downright broken. Whereas conservatives and libertarians, who don't even believe it is the place of the government to begin with, are the only ones who seem to think that if the government is going to stick its nose where it doesn't belong, it should at least do a halfway competent job at it. Do you not understand this? I don't think the government should run its services on unicorns and pixie farts; I think it shouldn't run most of them at all, at least not at at the federal level. This idea that the government is on the side of the little man is absolutely fucking laughable.

You honestly don't think any of the 10% unemployed would step up and say they'd be willing to work for the same amount minus the payroll tax reimbursement? A lot of people ARE living for here and now, mainly because they only have the means to do that. Very few have more than $1000 in savings. They're doing it tough. The jobs aren't around, and this whole capital gains tax cut crap has proven that it's not from a lack of investment, but a lack of people able to buy shit!

See, now youre grouping two things together. Just because I'm standing up for social security doesn't mean I want it to be inefficient. Government services can be up for independent audit just like private business, so don't go lumping those together, please.

I find your confidence in the American voting system interesting. So why aren't they for the little man? Could it be the allowance of undisclosed vast amounts of donations able to buy out your politicians, effectively turning your system into a Plutocratic Oligarchy? It would be interesting to see which party would be the first to veto a proposal to limit or eliminate private donations to political parties altogether.

But at least the government is up for scrutiny via frequent election. If you guys decide to vote someone corrupt in well, not anyone's fault but yourselves. When corporations get big enough, they REQUIRE the government to step in in order to stop it. Need I remind you of the monopoly of Standard Oil? Now, which side of politics would be against government intervention again?

Perhaps you require something more....recent? Take the Australian election of 2007. The conservative party just introduced a work relations reform bill called WorkChoices, promising "we've given the businesses more say in wage negotiations, but we assure you that they wont go too far". Guess what? As soon as the act passed into law, the media was reporting SIGNIFICANT wage cuts, with threats to legally dismiss employers unfairly. Now, you could say that it was the government's fault for relaxing regulations, but that govrnment got its ASS KICKED in the 2007 election. Even the Prime Minister lost his electorate, the first to happen since the 1910s. The subsequent government tore WorkChoices up. So from this example, are you seriously going to stand up and say business can be trusted over government? Give business an inch and they'll take a mile. Give government an inch, and if they take a mile, they'll be out.

You know, you could just get rid of the awful awful system that is social security and then just pass a law mandating that employers have to match up to the social security tax when put into retirement funds.  Would be waaaaay better.

This is by the way what republican candidates have been proposing not... "OMG DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY WITH FIRE".