Social Security ....The monthly Check...yes or no

[ohio jones]

There were computers in 1930. They were typically women.

My grandmother was one of those, doing data entry for a life insurance company.

[Ken]

There were computers in 1930. They were typically women.

My grandmother was one of those, doing data entry for a life insurance company.

If you watch the movie Hidden Figures (which is excellent by the way), it is about the Black women who worked at NASA doing spacecraft trajectory and orbital calculations by hand. They actually called them "computers" which if you think about it is the correct term for a person who does mathematical computations and the term that was used for centuries. Over time, the term "Mechanical Computers" and then "Electronic Computers" have come to replace them and then have just been shortened to "computers"

It sounds strange to our ears to hear people being called "computers" but it is actually the correct term.

[Neto]

It sounds strange to our ears to hear people being called "computers" but it is actually the correct term.

Yes, the ORIGINAL meaning of 'computer' was a job description, a person who did computations. Another word that has changed meaning over the years.

[JayP]

I read this tire thread and was left puzzled by it. Open Kimono…. I am someone who legally “left” the social security system when I joined a plain church. Years later, when I left that church I had to officially withdraw my exemption and re-enter Social Security.

I will retire in a few years with a full benefit and do intend to collect.

I would say, as a financially astute person, I question that many Americans are capable of the discipline to save.
While I would not disagree I’d you had let me leave Ss for good and self invest The amount of my social security taxes I would be better off. But without laws requiring such investments I think many folks would be worse off without it.

Within Plain churches there is enough family and community support for brotherhood assistance that it works for them.
I would reemphasize though that the FAMILY aspect of assistance is widely overlooked. Much of e what effectively WORKS in such communities is built in a foundation of FAMILY first and Brotherhood assistance second.

Let me be clear. I am not saying their approach to assistance does not work, but the lack of the extended family apsect for say converts is quite significant


It is another reason why while I do not have the right to tell anyone, converts or churches, I do think joining such groups from the outside rarely works out

[Soloist]

Let me be clear. I am not saying their approach to assistance does not work, but the lack of the extended family apsect for say converts is quite significant


It is another reason why while I do not have the right to tell anyone, converts or churches, I do think joining such groups from the outside rarely works out

Yes that is one of the larger problems with brotherhood sharing. Effectively they expect you to save for retirement.
I think we would be better off putting the excess money into the church. And having the church run a substance program for the old people. If, they don’t have family willing to take care of them. Ultimately we need housing, food and medical. The majority of people in the church have family to take care of them when they’re old, so effectively it would be designed for those without.
Church discipline would have to be used if members did not take care of their own.
You see early church writings talking about care for the poor and retired. It’s not that they were given great food, but they were given enough for their needs. Most of the writings seem to encourage the same quality for themselves.
If we spent less money on our food quality, I mean more simple things like soup or porridge… easy to say, harder to do.

[JayP]

There is a different aspect of this though that is being ignored. In communities like the Amish, or Eastern most of the business enterprises are farms, or family businesses. That is important. The point is the economic engine is capable of supporting extended family and needs worker units. That means as a man grows older he can still help in some capacity while the physically hard work can be turned over to younger workers. This allows for a total revenues structure that can support folks. Often the older ones need little support other than health care. It is not my experience that money is plowed into outside investments and then the proceeds used for older folks living expenses.

There modern American phenomena of being an employee then stopping work at say 65 does not meld well here. Only a defined revenue plan for retirement solves the problem of a regular person no longer working, that is you saved and invested or social security.

This just does not align with how say most “native” folks in old order or say Eastern circles live. Again it is why I say converts have trouble. The lack of extended family cuts off these various means.

Here is another example. I know of one family where a man is a master electrician. At some point he will take on an apprentice or two. But, and I do not blame him, it will be this son or that nephew. Never the son of some convert. It was not intentionally excluding them, there just always is a family circumstance or need that comes first. Sorry, angered off a bit even though related.

My main point being there are a lot of factors to these situations

[Ken]

You see early church writings talking about care for the poor and retired. It’s not that they were given great food, but they were given enough for their needs. Most of the writings seem to encourage the same quality for themselves.
If we spent less money on our food quality, I mean more simple things like soup or porridge… easy to say, harder to do.

Quite the sales pitch you have there.

Give up your right as an American to earn a lifetime pension and financial security. And in exchange we will make sure you get porridge and will at least be able to eat as well as a Medieval peasant.

[Soloist]

Quite the sales pitch you have there.

Give up your right as an American to earn a lifetime pension and financial security. And in exchange we will make sure you get porridge and will at least be able to eat as well as a Medieval peasant.

You do have a way of showing things. Give them money to take care of the poor, and in turn sacrifice your own style of living to be like the poor.
Ultimately though you have to decide what’s more important, food and clothing and sharing the resources you have? Or having nice things, nice food in your old age.
I don’t really see anyone accepting what I have to say on this, and I’m not going to lie, I don’t really like porridge that much. But I see the vast majority of financially wise people in America building bigger barns. Whereas I don’t see that being taught in Scripture. Why is my personal financial security more important than another’s? I’m talking about brothers in a church taking care of each other. Originally the objection to Social Security was that the role of the church was to do that… it seems to me like that was not actually their real reasons… I don’t know how it was back then but I know that nowadays it’s a financial decision. It really has very little to do with taking care of your brothers in the church. There is a very strong push to take care of yourself. This isn’t say they don’t help out, but to say that you want to give your money to the church to help others in need they will turn around and say “well don’t expect us to help you when you’re retired”

[Ken]

Quite the sales pitch you have there.

Give up your right as an American to earn a lifetime pension and financial security. And in exchange we will make sure you get porridge and will at least be able to eat as well as a Medieval peasant.

You do have a way of showing things. Give them money to take care of the poor, and in turn sacrifice your own style of living to be like the poor.
Ultimately though you have to decide what’s more important, food and clothing and sharing the resources you have? Or having nice things, nice food in your old age.
I don’t really see anyone accepting what I have to say on this, and I’m not going to lie, I don’t really like porridge that much. But I see the vast majority of financially wise people in America building bigger barns. Whereas I don’t see that being taught in Scripture. Why is my personal financial security more important than another’s? I’m talking about brothers in a church taking care of each other. Originally the objection to Social Security was that the role of the church was to do that… it seems to me like that was not actually their real reasons… I don’t know how it was back then but I know that nowadays it’s a financial decision. It really has very little to do with taking care of your brothers in the church. There is a very strong push to take care of yourself. This isn’t say they don’t help out, but to say that you want to give your money to the church to help others in need they will turn around and say “well don’t expect us to help you when you’re retired”

I'm just having a little fun but I think it is a serious issue.

Personally I don't really understand the CA opposition to insurance in all its forms. I mean I understand the basic intent behind it which is to build reliance on church and community. But to really make it work you need an insular multi-generational community and that is becoming a harder and harder thing to create in this day and age. And I don't really even think it is some sort of Biblical mandate. The New Testament world of Jesus and Paul was an urban one, especially Paul. He mostly preached to the larger cities in the Roman Empire to people who were city people and not insular rural communities.

There is nothing preventing Christians from simply forwarding their social security checks on to their church or to charity. If you don't want to rely on it you don't have to. But life does throw curveballs. People are forced to move for a variety of reasons and leave the community they were born into. Sometimes churches collapse, splinter, or otherwise disappear. So making a decision at age 18 about what kind of life you are going to have at age 70 seems fraught with peril.

[wesleyb]

People are forced to move for a variety of reasons and leave the community they were born into. Sometimes churches collapse, splinter, or otherwise disappear. So making a decision at age 18 about what kind of life you are going to have at age 70 seems fraught with peril.

We had some discussion about retirement saving at church recently, and to my mind Kens’s objection is the elephant in the room that has to be dealt with before implementing the ideals being discussed here of the church taking care of its own.

Look around your church pews, look at the experiences of people on this board. How many church groups has the average person been a part of over the years? I just can’t imagine something like this working when people change churches every 10 years. (One of you that likes to make polls should do one on how many churches have you been a member of)