Republicans want to massively cut Social Security benefits
- Thread starter WFFaithful
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
PhDeac
PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 155,353
- Reaction score
- 22,360
Explain what it means.
ThinkingWithMyDeac
Well-known member
This is correct but what if the cap is raised, but you also are allowed to opt into a lower percentage where that money can be invested tax free while forfeiting social security at retirement age. So someone with means, or even make a threshold that you need to hit to opt in is allowed to have a social security rate of like 3.1%, but also allow them to take the other 3.1% and have free use to invest.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
We already allow people to invest in both "safe" and unsafe avenues outside government. If you look up the arguments about 401(k)s, pretty much everything holds for privatization, plus some past proposals have included a government backstop guarantee on the private accounts so you can add a moral hazard argument.
One additional thing is that man is made for bigger things than obsessing over money! A public pension system that gives people time away from retirement planning is just and moral.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,248
- Reaction score
- 6,377
So long as the money up to that cap is still taxed and goes into the SS fund, this could work.
WFFaithful
Well-known member
Read up on the how the switch from pensions to 401k has hurt employees and concentrated wealth growth at the top.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
It means increased reductions for people who have to retire at whatever the minimum drawing age is (currently 62). These people are generally wracked by their careers and indeed they die younger than people who can delay collecting social security. Raising the retirement age from its current level puts the burden of adjustment on people who cause the least of the problem and who can least afford the adjustment.
ThinkingWithMyDeac
Well-known member
Oh yeah the taxed money goes into the general social security fund and people without the means retain their security blanket. I'm sure there would be a few people that have high paying jobs that opt out and lose all their investments but you had a choice to be risk adverse.
There are many objections to privatizing:
1. Tens of millions people aren't capable of saving if they aren't forced to do so. They would waste that money on silly things like food, clothing, medical expenses.
2. Most people aren't college grads or financially aware. Millions will lose their money and force a new, unpaid government program to be created.
3. It will effectively put the government in charge on the equity markets as there will have to be rules on how money is invested. The government will be picking winners and losers.
4. There will be trillions of dollars in scam investments that will BK people from all walks of life. Bernie Madoff will be piker compared to what will go on.
5. Equity markets will have bubbles that are incomprehensible to us today with the additions of trillions of dollars in investments at the beginning and then the constant flow of investments every pay period. Tons of companies will become grossly overvalued. People will lose inordinate amounts of money when this happens.
There are probably many really bad outcomes from privatizing, but those are among the greatest hits. Privatizing Social Security is the worst idea imaginable in the real world for the economy and the government.
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,923
explain this one
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2011
- Messages
- 23,248
- Reaction score
- 6,377
What would privatization do to treasury bonds?
Just like there are rules for everything from potato chips to mines, there would have to be regulations on what people could or couldn't invest their retirement in. These regulations could have everything from a mix of industries to how much would go into stocks, bonds, savings, etc.
The government will have to have rules to theoretically protect those investing as this will be replacing SS.
Now I'll piss off some of the progressives and conservatives. Part of what Cong. Johnson wants to do is correct, but most is wrong.
Let's look at how to fix it:
1. Raise the retirement age with some defined exceptions. The exceptions should be for people who work in physical jobs like farmers, construction workers, road workers, factory workers and a few others. For the rest of the public, the retirement age should be increased by 1 month/year for the next 60 years. When SS was created people didn't live that long after 65. This needs to be updated.
2. Every penny of income needs to pay Social Security Taxes. This should also include "creative" ways to get paid like dividends and others. If a dollar comes into the house, taxes are paid on it.
3. Means testing is critical. Social Security was never meant to be paid to those at the top or near the top. It was created to be the ultimate safety net. How about something like 30-50% above median income for a family of four? Don't cry about, "I'm paying in. I should get something back." How about paying real estate taxes when you have no kids? The number could be negotiated.
4. Use some of the savings from to increase benefits for those at the bottom. Again, this number needs to be negotiated. Those at the top will also benefit from this as they own the businesses or stock in the businesses where this money will be spent.
Let's look at how to fix it:
1. Raise the retirement age with some defined exceptions. The exceptions should be for people who work in physical jobs like farmers, construction workers, road workers, factory workers and a few others. For the rest of the public, the retirement age should be increased by 1 month/year for the next 60 years. When SS was created people didn't live that long after 65. This needs to be updated.
2. Every penny of income needs to pay Social Security Taxes. This should also include "creative" ways to get paid like dividends and others. If a dollar comes into the house, taxes are paid on it.
3. Means testing is critical. Social Security was never meant to be paid to those at the top or near the top. It was created to be the ultimate safety net. How about something like 30-50% above median income for a family of four? Don't cry about, "I'm paying in. I should get something back." How about paying real estate taxes when you have no kids? The number could be negotiated.
4. Use some of the savings from to increase benefits for those at the bottom. Again, this number needs to be negotiated. Those at the top will also benefit from this as they own the businesses or stock in the businesses where this money will be spent.
DeacHead
I could choose a custom title but don't
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 7,205
- Reaction score
- 768
1. Seems like a nightmare to enact, especially if the goal is to categorize someone retroactively. For example, the lady that spent 9 years on a factory floor then was promoted to management for 16 years. How will she be classified (rhetorical question)? Those numbers can undergo lots of permutations to show how unenforceable this is. ETA - I'm assuming you meant "6" and not "60". Making 73 years old the Normal Retirement Age seems extreme and I'm not sure how you arrived at that number. The proposed age of 69 in the OP is reasonable. Making it 73 absolutely devastates the value of the benefit for ALL retirees across the economic spectrum.
2. Funding does need to be addressed. This is one method, there are others.
3. "I'm paying in I should get something back" is a reasonable point to make and one that is going to resonate across political lines. The benefit formula already has diminishing returns for higher earners. Competely cutting off benefits for someone earnings $80,000... no, just no.
4. There needs to be savings before discussing what to do with the savings. Right now the objective is to simply make it have a state of equilibrium for the foreseeable future.
2. Funding does need to be addressed. This is one method, there are others.
3. "I'm paying in I should get something back" is a reasonable point to make and one that is going to resonate across political lines. The benefit formula already has diminishing returns for higher earners. Competely cutting off benefits for someone earnings $80,000... no, just no.
4. There needs to be savings before discussing what to do with the savings. Right now the objective is to simply make it have a state of equilibrium for the foreseeable future.
Last edited:
First of all, other than adding to the age, the other points require negotiation and time to implement.
1. The promotion situation is obviously one that needs to be addressed.
3. As I said, that number has to be negotiated. You do realize I'm not talking about how much you made as a worker. I'm talking about retirement income. And it can be phased out as you near the top.
4. Of course and it has to be phased in.
Again, everything in those points will need to be negotiated, but you have to start somewhere. Yes, people from both sides will complain. That usually means you are on the right track.
It's 67 now. I said 1 month/year for the next 60 years. That would raise it to 72 by 2076. I can't see it going up much faster, but maybe in the last 30 years of that span it could.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
As you can see her, in 1950 US life expectancy was 68.2. Sixty years later, US life expectancy grew to 78.7. If it does the same thing over the next sixty years, it will reach about 88 years. Having it at 72 by then makes sense.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
As you can see her, in 1950 US life expectancy was 68.2. Sixty years later, US life expectancy grew to 78.7. If it does the same thing over the next sixty years, it will reach about 88 years. Having it at 72 by then makes sense.
TuffaloDeac10
🌹☭
Life expectancy at 65(ish) is what matters, not life expectancy at birth.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
the answer is clearly to kill off anyone over 75