Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[dblack]

You have the solution to fantasy, I have the solution to reality, and the reality is that there will always be irresponsible people. You may not like it, but that's never going to change.

The question is whether we cater to and/or encourage irresponsibility with state policy. I think it's a bad idea.

For something like this to ever happen, you'd need overwhelming support for it and you're not going to get it. Besides the irresponsible, the unintelligent, you have people too insecure without government involvement. Lush is a great example of this. The only thing that scares him the most about what we're talking about is government not handling these affairs, and nearly half of the country are just like him. That's how Democrats gain and maintain power.

I think it's far less than half. I think we have a relatively small percentage of people who are truly incapable of running their own lives. Most everyone else can manage.

The sad thing is, most of the support for the pervasive welfare state comes from people such as yourself, who fear that the "underclass" will rise up and smite them if we don't cater to the lowest common denominator. That's essentially conceding defeat out of the gate.

So in order for it to work you need as many people on board as possible and that won't happen if you get government completely out of the way. Furthermore do you really believe our country would support people starving because they weren't smart enough to save or invest wisely? I hate it to, but government would have to be there to supervise something like this.

Sorry. I just can't cave to this kind of dour perspective. We don't need government to take care of us like a bunch of cattle.

 

[WinterBorn]

The question is whether we cater to and/or encourage irresponsibility with state policy. I think it's a bad idea.

I think it's far less than half. I think we have a relatively small percentage of people who are truly incapable of running their own lives. Most everyone else can manage.

The sad thing is, most of the support for the pervasive welfare state comes from people such as yourself, who fear that the "underclass" will rise up and smite them if we don't cater to the lowest common denominator. That's essentially conceding defeat out of the gate.


Sorry. I just can't cave to this kind of dour perspective. We don't need government to take care of us like a bunch of cattle.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of your comment. But there are a LOT of cattle out there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The question is whether we cater to and/or encourage irresponsibility with state policy. I think it's a bad idea.

I think it's far less than half. I think we have a relatively small percentage of people who are truly incapable of running their own lives. Most everyone else can manage.

The sad thing is, most of the support for the pervasive welfare state comes from people such as yourself, who fear that the "underclass" will rise up and smite them if we don't cater to the lowest common denominator. That's essentially conceding defeat out of the gate.


Sorry. I just can't cave to this kind of dour perspective. We don't need government to take care of us like a bunch of cattle.

I don't think we do either, but again, you live in fantasy world where everybody is responsible, intelligent and would like nothing more than government out of their lives. I live in reality.

Nearly 60 million Americans are on some form of government assistance today, so we're not talking about a small group of people. 24 million kids are on welfare meaning they don't have responsible enough parents to take total care of their children. And you think all these millions of people are capable of making sound financial decisions to secure their retirement years? They can't even take care of themselves now yet alone 20,30,50 years down the road.

20+ Important Welfare Statistics for 2024 | Fortunly

Poverty is a growing issue in the US, and our welfare statistics are meant to shine some light upon the financial hardships that people face.

fortunly.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah that is the answer. Throw more money at government agencies ripe with inefficiencies and corruption.

I swear some of you must be paid to support the Democrats. I find it hard to believe that any American can be so naïve.

People like him always do think of throwing more money at the problem. How many IRS agents are working 50 or 60 hour weeks? How many are working six days a week?

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't think it's so black and white. In any case, the poor planning of some is better to deal with IF and when it happens then to presume the worst case and build policy around it.

Yes, you do DBlack. I find it rather interesting that you call my position here 'black and white' as that is YOUR position, not mine. I am not the one demading that there is an all or nothing ordeal here, you are.

Your position is, and correct me if I am wrong, that the government having ANY PART in retirement gives them to much power. Because of that, they should play NO ROLE at all. I actually agree with that tbh but reality does not work like that.

Can you not see that is a black and white position, they cannot have ANY role whatsoever?

My position is grey, because that conveys so much power it needs to be as private as possible whilst still achieving the goal that SS is charged with in the first place. You cannot get less black and white, either or, as I am not relaying a position that demands one extreme or the other.

I disagree. Why "must"?

Because getting rid of the program currently has about 0% support. Even the proposition that Elvis is still alive has 4% support. IOW, your position is a flat out impossibility. If getting rid of SS is flatly impossible, well 'must' is a proper term to use.

So, for at least the next 30+ years, we 'must' have a Social Security program as I am not working with pie in the sky impossibilities.

Privatization is extremely unpopular as it is but it is at least conceivable in its possibility. Canning SS is not even close.

Horseshit. We're not hapless morons. Sans government involvement people WILL solve their own problems. True story.

Irrelevant.

You are still being an ideologue if your solution, which IS black and white, happens to be impossible. Like I said, I actually agree but it simply is not in the cards. Therefore, we need a better solution, not the one that fits my personal ideology to a T.

I'm not. I'm satisfied with reducing the welfare state. It's not an all or nothing proposition. I just reject the idea of a "safety net" we're all forced into. That's not a safety net - it's just state control.

Except you are advocating an all or nothing right here.

So, yes you are

And yes, I phrased it like a schoolyard rant cause it is funny.

This is the black and white thinking. I don't accept the idea that if we're going to accept some socialism, we need to be "all in" - that we must have cradle-to-grave guarantees from government (guarantees that aren't worth shit anyway).

Except did I say all in? Nope, I proposed something that is virtually 100 percent private with governmental regulation in place to keep the investments within targets. Much like the government operated everywhere else.

That is viable. It is better. It provides generational wealth to people that have never seen it and, most importantly in my mind, it shows the poor what money can do if it is invested and how to do so properly.

I understand there are still major problems here, not the least of which is trying to run a program without a ton of corruption that will have major effects in the market. However, ALL of the problems with what I advocate for are present in SS now to a MUCH larger degree IMHO.

But your entire post against it reads like a rant against an all or nothing proposition. What is clear, that is NOT the case. I have, and will again, point out that is what you are advocating for, just the nothing side of that position.

 

[beagle9]

No, good idea. That's where my (and others) IRA is invested and we're doing great unless you decided to handle your own money. I did even better during the DumBama years. Like I said earlier in the conversation, SS sends out pamphlets now and then describing your (and your employers) contributions to your account. Next time they do that, take that pamphlet to a reputable investment company and ask them what you would be worth today had that money been deposited to your private account all these years. Then compare it to the SS estimated payout if you retired today.

You and I both save the same amount of money every month. You put your money in a standard savings account with your bank and I put mine in a conservative growth fund. Which one of us will have more money at the age of 60 do you suppose? That's what we're really talking about here, and that's why SS is going broke. No institution can stay open paying out more than they take in.

Well the government isn't like a profit seeking, bottom line loving, greed aggressive do or die private institution. It is the people's institution, and it is limitless as long as we keep paying into it. The problem comes with the managing of our money by individuals that are basically running a ponsi-scheme like someone said before. If we in the private sector run such a thing in the ways that it has been run, we'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff. Now the trick is getting those kinds of people out of our pockets, and out of our government if they want to screw us over like they do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well the government isn't like a profit seeking, bottom line loving, greed aggressive do or die private institution. It is the people's institution, and it is limitless as long as we keep paying into it. The problem comes with the managing of our money by individuals that are basically running a ponsi-scheme like someone said before. If we in the private sector run such a thing in the ways that it has been run, we'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff. Now the trick is getting those kinds of people out of our pockets, and out of our government if they want to screw us over like they do.

Yeah but if we don't have government involvement with our retirement plans, you'd never be able to sell the change over to the people.

 

[beagle9]

Yeah but if we don't have government involvement with our retirement plans, you'd never be able to sell the change over to the people.

Individuals running government and government are two different things. We need to make sure that we have competent people running our country, and not corrupt ideologues. It's past time.

 

[Flopper]

Great to see you as well Flopper. I guess we are just in different topics because I'm here all the time.

I'm 61 so I'm a little beyond the 59.5 year line but I was applying for disability during that time and looked into it in case disability was going to take forever. Luckily they approved me right away so I didn't touch it. However I'm not going to make it to retirement age anyway. The Dr. said I only had a few more years to live if I'm lucky and the chemo is working well. But unless I need it when I become helpless, I'm going to have a few bucks to leave to my surviving family members.

What we were discussing is how to get out of this Ponzi scheme created for us so that younger people have a chance at saving for retirement. Obviously government let us down and the program really can't be saved unless it's provided for by the general fund. However we just hit the 30 trillion dollar in debt mark and I'm afraid if it goes any further it may be the end of this country as we know it.

Sorry to hear about your condition, Ray. Most people get more out of s.s. than they put in which probably explains their 82% satisfaction rating. Unfortunately , you will not be one of them.

The only changes I think are pollical possible is changing the age of retirement and/or increase in contribution rate and even that is going to be very hard. I believe it would take bi-partisan support and that would be just as hard.

There have been many plans to replace social security. Obviously any such plan would have to leave the current system in place for current beneficiaries. Since plan contributions of workers would be going to the new plan, where does the money come from to support the old plan since the trust fund is rapidly being depleted? Of course we know the answer will be to increase taxes.

There is another problem that would have to be resolved. All savings plans carry risk. It may prove impossible to sustain deposits at planned levels. Investment returns may fall short of expectations. Who should bear these risks? All privatization plans put the risk on the individual. Each worker bears the full consequence of shortfalls in deposits or returns on his or her individual account, and the pension is reduced proportionately.

Lastly, who would support the new plan. It would be unlikely that 82% of social security beneficiaries that are satisficed with the current system would provide any support for a new plan. Democrats would be unlikely to supported any new system. And republicans would have a hard time supporting it since it would require new taxes to maintaining the current system with worker contributions going to the new plan thus it would meet a lot of resistance among republicans.

Like it or not, we stuck with what got.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Individuals running government and government are two different things. We need to make sure that we have competent people running our country, and not corrupt ideologues. It's past time.

If we don't start doing something about stupid voters being able to vote, that will never happen. If it were up to me, you'd have to take a very simple test before being allowed to vote. But if the Republicans ever made such a suggestion, the Communists would go ape shit.

 

[Lesh]

Since plan contributions of workers would be going to the new plan, where does the money come from to support the old plan since the trust fund is rapidly being depleted? Of course we know the answer will be to increase taxes.

Exactly. That would blow a HUGE hole in the budget...and to what end? Privatizing for the sake of it.

There is another problem that would have to be resolved. All savings plans carry risk. It may prove impossible to sustain deposits at planned levels. Investment returns may fall short of expectations. Who should bear these risks?

As happened in Chile...it would fall right back on the government...with millions of people screwed in the process.

If we don't start doing something about stupid voters being able to vote, that will never happen.

Good Lord. And who would make that determination YOU?

We've read your posts

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry to hear about your condition, Ray. Most people get more out of s.s. than they put in which probably explains their 82% satisfaction rating. Unfortunately , you will not be one of them.

The only changes I think are pollical possible is changing the age of retirement and/or increase in contribution rate and even that is going to be very hard. I believe it would take bi-partisan support and that would be just as hard.

There have been many plans to replace social security. Obviously any such plan would have to leave the current system in place for current beneficiaries. Since plan contributions of workers would be going to the new plan, where does the money come from to support the old plan since the trust fund is rapidly being depleted? Of course we know the answer will be to increase taxes.

There is another problem that would have to be resolved. All savings plans carry risk. It may prove impossible to sustain deposits at planned levels. Investment returns may fall short of expectations. Who should bear these risks? All privatization plans put the risk on the individual. Each worker bears the full consequence of shortfalls in deposits or returns on his or her individual account, and the pension is reduced proportionately.

Lastly, who would support the new plan. It would be unlikely that 82% of social security beneficiaries that are satisficed with the current system would provide any support for a new plan. Democrats would be unlikely to supported any new system. And republicans would have a hard time supporting it since it would require new taxes to maintaining the current system with worker contributions going to the new plan thus it would meet a lot of resistance among republicans.

Like it or not, we stuck with what got.

As I stated it would have to be done slowly. For instance we allow new young workers to be able to contribute 10% to the new plan and have to support the old plan with the other 90% of their contributions. Then in five years or so as more of us older people die out, 20% to the new system. Mind you not everybody will be on board with that, but at least those who understand finances will certainly jump at the opportunity.

When those younger people retire, they will get 80 to 90% of their SS contributions, and 10% to 20% of their own IRA money. Eventually we would be at 0% in the SS fund in 40 or 50 years depending on how it's designed.

Either way tax dollars are going to be needed to support the current plan, but I would rather the tax money go towards getting rid of it than keeping it forever and having to fund it with taxes outside of what's collected for SS.

As far as increased contributions go to save it, why do you think they never presented that as an option? Because the Democrats know quite well that by taking more from workers, eventually more and more people would be demanding to get government out of their retirement plan. Look at the shit fit they had when GW suggested allowing people to use just 2% of their SS money for private IRA investment. They knew quite well that it would be a Pandor's box. Once people seen the great results of their own money growing, they would be demanding 5%, then 10% and so on.

The less you depend on government, the less you need Democrats around. So they want as many government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more control they have over you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good Lord. And who would make that determination YOU?

We've read your posts

That's good. I'm glad you're learning something while here.

As I said I would love to see people have to pass a test before voting. If you fail the short and easy test, you don't get to vote that year. If you want to vote next election, then you need to educate yourself on policies and politics a little more.

 

[Flopper]

Yeah but if we don't have government involvement with our retirement plans, you'd never be able to sell the change over to the people.

And transition to a new system would be costly because contributions to the current s.s. would go to the new plan, the trust fund would be gone in a few years and government would have to support all benefit payments out of the operating budget and that would likely mean a tax increase.

The only problem with the existing system is we increased benefits with SSI, SSD, survivor benefits, cost living, and paying benefits longer due to increase life spans and have not been reflected these costs in increased FICA contributions. Thus the increasing surplus in the fund stopped, reversed, and is not falling rapidly and will reach zero sometime in about 12 years.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And transition to a new system would be costly because contributions to the current s.s. would go to the new plan, the trust fund would be gone in a few years and government would have to support all benefit payments out of the operating budget and that would likely mean a tax increase.

The only problem with the existing system is we increased benefits with SSI, SSD, survivor benefits, cost living, and paying benefits longer due to increase life spans and have not been reflected these costs in increased FICA contributions. Thus the increasing surplus in the fund stopped, reversed, and is not falling rapidly and will reach zero sometime in about 12 years.

I'm not talking about FICA, I'm talking about the SS contributions.

 

[Flopper]

As I stated it would have to be done slowly. For instance we allow new young workers to be able to contribute 10% to the new plan and have to support the old plan with the other 90% of their contributions. Then in five years or so as more of us older people die out, 20% to the new system. Mind you not everybody will be on board with that, but at least those who understand finances will certainly jump at the opportunity.

When those younger people retire, they will get 80 to 90% of their SS contributions, and 10% to 20% of their own IRA money. Eventually we would be at 0% in the SS fund in 40 or 50 years depending on how it's designed.

Either way tax dollars are going to be needed to support the current plan, but I would rather the tax money go towards getting rid of it than keeping it forever and having to fund it with taxes outside of what's collected for SS.

As far as increased contributions go to save it, why do you think they never presented that as an option? Because the Democrats know quite well that by taking more from workers, eventually more and more people would be demanding to get government out of their retirement plan. Look at the shit fit they had when GW suggested allowing people to use just 2% of their SS money for private IRA investment. They knew quite well that it would be a Pandor's box. Once people seen the great results of their own money growing, they would be demanding 5%, then 10% and so on.

The less you depend on government, the less you need Democrats around. So they want as many government dependents as possible. The more government dependents, the more control they have over you.

We will have the opportunity to setup a new S. S. system in about 12 years when the S.S. retirement trust fund is exhausted and goverment starts paying the benefits not paid by current contributions. This is how most other countries handle their retirement safety net. The social security retirement trust would have worked fine if we had not modified social security to add SSDI, SSI, survivor benefits, cost living adjustments, etc.

IMHO, nothing is going to be done to save social security as it is today. When the time nears for the SS trust fund to go bust in about 12 years, congress will pass a tax increase to pay the benefits that will no longer be paid by the trust. And it will pass because the alternative would be to make a huge cut in benefit payments. From that point on, contributions will be paid by current contributions and the treasury operating budget.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not talking about FICA, I'm talking about the SS contributions.

I meant S.S. contributions. I forgot FICA includes Medicare.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I meant S.S. contributions. I forgot FICA includes Medicare.

It includes other things such as disability which you brought up. Disability is funded by FICA contributions. When government said I could no longer work because of my medical conditions, I looked it up.

In any case I think that if we did a slow conversion to private IRA's for our retirement, people would have more money at retirement, possibly able to retire earlier than 67, or whatever age they are going to raise it to, and be able to leave their family or other heirs the money they worked so hard for if they only use part or none of it unlike what they will get from SS which is zero.

 

[Flopper]

You have no choice when it comes to the money the fucking government takes from you to fund the fake SS trust fund

And this is about Social Obscurity so the special class if T bills that the government made up to cover up the looting of the so called SS Trust fund are relevant to the discussion.

Nor should we. Countries without a functional mandatory retirement safety net have a huge poverty problem among retired with more homeless, more health problems to dealt with, more welfare, parents forced to live their children and their families creating more social problem. This is why every developed nation has a mandatory retirement system and more advanced the better funded they are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

SS and MC were started in 1934 and 1965 respectfully. In 1934 job were much more physical and people’s bodies broke down starting in their 50s. Nowadays go to any company and you see people working well into their 70s… heck even construction are less strenuous on the person’s body. The trend is only going to increase. In addition, medicine is getting better and people are living longer. This reality should be recognized.

In addition it is much easier to take care of oneself and eat better and feel better at older ages.

Our safety nets need to reflect this new reality.

The biggest issue is how long people live for, and who does the work if not the old people.

When robots take over everything, it'll be simple. But right now it's a choice between immigrants or older people.