So, in order to stop the escalating nature of SS payments vs the decreasing revenue to pay for it, you want to increase the $7500 (or $14k, cant remember) cap on workers and employers?
Basically, increase taxes on everyone in the country to pay for a government sponsored retirement program.
Hmmm....
Seems to me that the easiest solution if you do not like the scrapping idea, would be to only pay each individual what they paid in. Because that is the major problem with SS payments.
Nothing irks me more when it comes to social programs than statements such as this. Its always framed as a benefit to the participant and not society as a whole.
What would be the consequences of letting the elderly suffer the actual consequences of not being able to provide for themselves due to bad cir stances or bad planning? Do you think that would be beneficial to society as a whole or would it be a detriment?
Sorry DR, but this is baloney. I don't dispute that SS needs reform or simply be replaced with a better system, but at the current raising costs of medicine, housing, etc, you can wipe your savings in no time at all unless you're talking millions. And we know millionaires only make a blip in the radar compared to the general population, which will turn to the state in one way or another and the taxpayers will be in the hook for it anyways.
McConnell Admits To Taking Debt Ceiling ‘Hostage’: It’s ‘Worth Ransoming’
“I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done.”
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...rth-ransoming/
The linkage now presumed to exist b/w the debt ceiling and fiscal cuts, is the real victory of the GOP. It did not exist before.
(dept of life imitates art)
I think that, as a society, we're experiencing the negative consequences of trying to provide a safety net for people's bad cir stances and planning. It's not a one way street where providing a social safety net is good and not having one is bad--there are consequences (good and bad) to a world with and a world without these types of government programs.
But we can put the debate in your terms. I'd argue that society as a whole suffers when we ins ute programs that diminish one's personal responsibility in planning their financial future. Sure, some people have it tough or might get unlucky in their lives. But you save your money for those rainy days.
Ultimately, society is better off when there is a stronger emphasis on personal financial responsibility and not on government safety nets. Add to that the fact that the safety net itself is falling apart. I just don't see how the advantages to programs like SS outweigh the problems.
If you remove humanistic compassion from the thought process, nothing is lost.
Since that isnt me or our society, much is lost.
Since you and ElNono are basically pulling on the same thread...
...which where being able to afford your own insurance at an elderly age comes into play.
But regardless, it would seem youre both speaking about Medicare, not SS. Also, if youre at retirement age and do not own the home you live in then you literally suck at life.
Medicare I do not feel too strongly about one way or the other, except that it should not be mandatory, it should be elective. This alone would save costs to the system as those of means would flock out of the program entirely and since it is illegal for the Medicare program to negotiate costs as a whole with private healthcare as it is, the net benefit would at least give incentive to change that. As for how much Medicare does and does not cover, I cannot speak to that as the only people I know supplement their coverage anyway with private insurance.
Social Security is a scam for one reason. It is routine for beneficiaries to receive more money than they ever put into the system, especially when you account for inflation.
No one should receive more than they put in or the entire system should be scrapped. I think thats rather simple.
The crux of my argument, if there is one, is that SS beneficiaries routinely receive more funds than they ever put in.
Which automatically, IMO, makes its existence indefensible. If SS funds are guaranteed by US Treasury bonds that earn interest, then it would be your contribution + accrued interest. I have no problem with that.
But that just isnt the case. The system, as it exists, is not sustainable unless you either a) only get what you put in or b) as boutons suggested, raise the cap on employees and employers.
Good luck with plan B.
Well, they're somewhat interwinded. Medicare Part B, for example, is taken straight out of your SS check. You might also be on the hook for Medicare Part A premium (depends on your job).
Add raising housing costs (either as property taxes or rent), etc, and if your only income when you get old is your SS check, you're going to need a heck of a fund to draw from.
I would argue that would make it more expensive. Removing people from the pool only removes leverage.
Well, there's plenty of similar systems that operate that way. Take a CD on a bank. You put X money and are guaranteed a return of X+Y after a period of time. The idea behind SS is that the trust fund is converted into T bonds that would be payed back with an interest in the future (thus offsetting the inflation rate). The theory isn't unsound. The problem is that you're lending to a potential delinquent. That's what's wrong about it, and why it needs some sort of reform.
AFAIK, that's the way it's supposed to work. BTW, a lot of private pension funds worldwide operate in a similar way (i.e.: Japan).
But what leverage?
As I understand it, the government (specifically Medicare) cannot legally negotiate with drug companies or insurance companies as a single en y.
What leverage are you removing if there wasnt any to begin with?
Well, it isnt working that way. If it were, the system wouldnt be broke, would it?
It would be zero sum.
Why do you think some doctors don't take Medicare patients?
Price controls on doctors for Medicare reimbursement dates back to the Reagan administration. It's what got rid of the "balance bill". Doctors must charge what Medicare pays, not one more penny. It's a method of price control. The only reason it makes sense for a doctor to see Medicare patients is because of the volume. You remove that and Medicare is left with no more leverage.
It would actually be a positive sum if the T-Bonds would outpace inflation, which IIRC they should. It's obviously broken though. You'll get no argument from me there, and it does need some sort of reform.
I would like to see SS transformed into some system where everybody gets a personalized account, funded by their SS contributions that only they get to touch once they hit retirement age.
Medicare is trickier. I think it ends up becoming some kind of voucher program.
Said account need to somehow accrue some interest to fight off inflation though, otherwise it's pretty worthless.
Rationing! Death Panels!
Forgot to mention putting the money into treasuries was part of the plan.
Rationing! Death Panels!
Ah, I understand now. Thanks.
Is there any type of reform Dems would actually support?
Bush tried to put forth a plan and was promptly attacked for hating grandma and grandpa. Paul Ryan put something on paper and promptly faced the same attacks. Have dems ever put an actual plan for reform on paper?
The problem with the GOP proposals is that privatizing it is a non-solution, IMO. You can't put life savings on the market roulette, they're just too important. You see what happened with 401K's. If you willingly want to do it, then get a 401Ks and gamble away. That's my opinion anyways.
I don't see why what coyotes_geek suggested wouldn't gain traction with Dems, outside of some special interest. But in order for that to works the government can't default on it's debt obligations.
No problem with mine, or most others. Follow a few simple rules, and there is no problem.
When will you stop listening to the scaremongers?
Life expectancy was something like 62 years when SS was enacted. People are living 16-17 years longer than that now.
Duh, raise the retirement age.
Nah... I'm sure the 27% loss on average on 2008 alone was no big deal.
By 2010, they were basically where they were in 2006... without adjusting for inflation.
Like S&P posting a meager 4% for the entire last decade?
I'm talking reality here. If you want to talk about a fantasy world, head to the Geek Zone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote