Yea, let's privatize Social Security and give the money to the stock market so they can invest it. That was a Bush proposal, and I'm glad it went nowhere. Had that happened, then Social Security checks would have totally tanked when the stock market crashed, and seniors wouldn't even be able to afford dog food to eat.
Perhaps you've heard of Paul Ryan, who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Government should be out of the transfer business beyond a smallish minimum income payment and severe punishment for fraud.
I would probably agree with you if we can get Social Security back to its original scope, but question is how do you get there.
Well, we can wait until the country goes down.
Alternatively we can watch the Finns and see how they do it.
But if they aren't, then the people who are in their 60s today will not get paid.
Heritage is selling something called 'true insurance', which is indistinguishable from something called 'welfare'. Cato is a cottage industry player that hasn't updated is plan in a decade. Where is the proposed legislation behind these players? Converting SS to a system of private accounts might cost as much as $30 trillion. Wake me when someone has a plan.
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....
1) I'm glad Democrats have shifted the argument away from cutting and toward expanding this essential program.
2) Immigration is an important factor in sustaining SS. It helps ameliorate the effects of an aging population. Nations without a lot of immigration, like China, are feeling it worse than the US. And believe it or not, illegal immigrants help more than legal immigrants! Not that I'm supporting illegal immigration, by the way.
3) The really long-term forecast for SS is that it peaks about 20 years from now then roughly maintains its cost. Unlike health care...
The shortfalls of SS grow to eternity.
That's exactly how a spammer would reply. I show documented facts. You say, nuh-uh, with no citation.
Are you just a spammer? Or just another conservative Republican? (gee, which would be worse? a puzzle to keep one up at night...)
"It" in this context implies deals with a 25 trillion dollar shortfall. That is 100 times their GDP. What isn't that the Fins do that you think is so great.
I hadn't seen that. Do you have a reference?
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2015/VI_F_infinite.html#
The public debate uses a hoaky number based on cashflow over 75 years which is designed to make the problem appear small. It is not the cost to fix SS. It is the cost to kick the can.
Forbes Welcome
The figure is based on mortality tables today. Not sure what the author is talking about "Demographers tell us that children born today can expect to live to 100, and the child has already been born who will live to 200. " If so, SS is entirely screwed.
The shortfalls of SS grow to eternity.
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....
And health care must be totally privatized above a minimum coverage the population can buy out of minimum income payments.
The SS system is relatively healthy by international standards but on its way against a wall, nonetheless. We should phase it out now, when it is still relatively easy and attached to only low pain.
The SS system is fully funded until at least the year 2032, and by then a very large percentage of Baby Boomers will surely be dead (they've started dying like flies already). This will take a lot of pressure off the system because the next big bubble will be Millennials, and they won't "ripen" for a much longer time to come. There is no reason whatsoever for anyone over the age of 60 to be cheated out of a penny -- except that politicians like Gov. Butter-tub Christie and other Republicans want to practice "means-testing" which has never been part of the deal and was never mentioned at all when the government was happily taking all the FICA money they could right out of our paychecks....
Can you elaborate on "relatively healthy"? As compared to what? There is not low pain here. Either you are going to cut off existing retirees, or you are going to create a generation of future retirees that will be financially ruined. The only thing that makes the latter low pain is that you do not believe you will see it yourself.
Relatively means here compared to the other systems I looked at. I haven't done the math in some time, but the US system was not due to become un-sustainable until most of the other OECD ones have foundered, the UK being the remarkable exception.
Low pain did not want to indicate that there would be no pain. But replaced now it would cost far fewer tears than if we wait till it is functionally insolvent.
Previously you said phased-out. Here you are talking about replaced. Please do not tell me you want to replace SS with personal savings accounts.
No, I do not want to do that, though increased savings would be one result of replacing SS. Replacement would be by installing a minimum income of some type. This would replace the other social programs as well.
Phasing out was only to indicate that an immediate discontinuation would cause to much individual hardship as a result of system change and put the legitimacy of the US government in question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?