Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by g8orbill, Jun 11, 2019.
Turns out it's not baby boomers who have taken the most from Social Security
Whatever branch of government mothballs it will face an armed revolt.
Good article, although not a surprise. Believe it or not 35 years ago give or take I did my English term paper basically asserting social security was a ponzi scheme. They would keep increasing and expanding benefits, coupled with rising lifespans and fund it by expanding the system and bringing more people into the program. Once most retirees were in the system and population has stabilized the gig is up. The baby boomers working and bringing in tax revenue masked / deferred the problem. My views have changed and now think it is a decent program, and ponzi scheme is a bit hyberbolic, but nonetheless the core problems of early generations robbing the cookie jar did exist. However what is done is done (and given what that generation went through and contributed I'm not going to throw stones) and in spite of all that problem is fixable with modest tax increases and retirement age increases, mostly geared towards those on the upper end of the scale (unfortunately like my wife and I). There is some logic in that because the average lifespan between rich and poor has expanded rather dramatically.
I expect at some point it will be means tested and the eligible will be reduced to only the poor. So for the rest of us it will have been a tax that we paid taxes on. They will do it gradually of course so as to not start a revolt.
SS was never intended to be for everybody. It was originally suppose to be only for the most destitute. But like every government program paid by the taxpayer it grows until everyone feels entitled. An example of why having the government “socialize” anything leads to bloat and waste.
And an employer of last resort.
In my opinion it needs to be income tested. Those that saved should not be taxed by the spenders.
Not sure I get what you are saying. So if it is determined I make too much money, I don’t get the benefits I was promised and paid into for potentially over 50 years? (And paid both federal and state taxes on?)
If means tested needs to be based on income not assets.
Isn't it interesting how the people who do the right things like work hard, sacrifice, save a lot and pay the most taxes seem to be the ones who government likes to punish the most?
One thing rarely talked about is how the inflation adjustment and the minimum amount of benefits effects things. Social security is partly a retirement system and partly a system to deal with poverty. The two probably need to be seperated with the full retirement age being increased and the inflation adjustment limited to those at the bottom of the distribution. The amount subject to taxes also needs to be increased but not to 100% as some progressives insist is correct.
Ummm...yeah.. You see the way it works is they need the upper income brackets to pay into it and then eventually not reap any of the investment. Most who have worked and settle themselves into a decent living either through advancement in the company or entrepreneurship, are the social bread winners but will be asked to forgo the benefits for the social good. Had one been given the option to use that garnered amount towards for private investment as opposed to what we have now, it stands to reason that their retirement chest would be quite a bit larger. Unfortunately that can't be allowed to happen. SS started out as perhaps a decent idea but once the fed figured out they had a change jug in the closet with a constant flow of quarters they just started dipping their hands into for whatever they wanted to do.
At least from funding standpoint. We do NOT need another government employer.
If you could invest 7% in a Mutual Fund from the beginning...no one would need to worry. The Government could then focus on the needy. Medical the same way...Insurance for catastrophic only.
"Asked?" I feel pretty confident I won't get "asked" anything.....
This unequivocally not true. It was never intended to be a straight up welfare program.
Aesop told us the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper some 2,600 years ago. Alex.
Whats the alternative? Tax people who have nothing?
Give them nothing... or a reduced benefit for having paid nothing/less.
You don't have the necessary permissions to use the chat.