The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
Which public sector? Federal, state or municipal?
Think carefully before you answer, because the latter two don't issue their own currency and thus basically have to balance their budgets, therefore budgetary constraints exist, and so at those levels simply forcing the citizens in a given area who don't want to or have the funds to hire the unemployed will result in a battered tax base and economic suffering.
On the basis that there is nothing remaining that the taxpayers (who must pay those wages and benefits) want or need them to do. Because if there was, they would already be employing them to do it.
On the basis that those they did hire (e.g. to keep their streets and sewer lines clear, water lines connected and supplied, garbage collected, and so forth) have now unionized against them and inflated their wages and benefits to levels that no longer provide sufficient public funding for more public employees.
On the basis that public sector pensions have resulted in monumental liabilities that have been pinned on the new generation of taxpayers, who happen to be poorer and more underemployed and over-indebted than their parents' and grandparents' generations were at the same age.
On all sorts of bases do I argue that the government does not need to be giving people "jobs" for the sake of them being "employed." I would rather expand welfare (for working age people) than create workfare as a pretense of productivity.
if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
I said no, only because I want it all. But I know I'll be means tested and we have "too much money" so I won't see a penny of it anyway, and I'm ****ing 53.
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
Does this also mean I would not have to pay SS from here on out?
no. pay me what i was promised. if there isn't enough money, raise taxes, and end the wars.
I said no, only because I want it all. But I know I'll be means tested and we have "too much money" so I won't see a penny of it anyway, and I'm ****ing 53.
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?
Just curious. How would we fund the new welfare program needed to support those people who spent all their money before retirement? Or would we just float them out to sea?
It's not like SS pays enough for people to live on now. It's a supplement. Many people on SS are on other public assistance programs as well.
IMO, that's their problem. Now you CAN cash out an IRA early and if someone blows through that they'd be eligible to use the existing welfare systems already in place - I'm not sure why there would need to be a new welfare program we have plenty already at both State and Federal levels.
I feel like you missed the point. If that supplemental income disappeared, they would need even MORE assistance. Same amount of financial need, just shifted into a different governmental program.
Why would they automatically need more assistance unless you are assuming they misspend the lump sum? Yes it will be less but who knows how old they are? Maybe they'll continue to work, at least part time. I would. Maybe they'll die before they spend it all. You have no idea.
I don't know what you're saying.
Say one goes from receiving $500 from social security and $500 from financial need programs (welfare/foodstamps/etc). Person budgets $1,000 for food/shelter/bills.
Now there's no more social security. They only get $500 from remaining financial need programs. Person still needs another $500 to live. You're suggesting they're on their own ???? The problem will just fix itself because they can go back to work, or just get on with it and die?
the public sector that isn't the private, for profit sector.
in a first world society, it's either pay people to work or pay them not to. i prefer the former.
You'd rather give them money and have no goods to show for it...?
You can't find a single infrastructure or service that's understaffed...? Do you have any idea how severely our bridges have deteriorated because they aren't properly maintained...?
Think about how the different public sectors must budget and obtain financial resources.
Then you must only buy American-made.
What are you doing to encourage others to do the same?
the public sector is funded by taxes. i'm for reprioritizing and finding new sources of revenue.
incorrect, though i would support manufacturing more goods here, whether privately or publicly.
Different public sectors gather their financial means through very different types of taxes. Hence the idea that the public sector should simply hire the unemployed begs the question, which level of the public sector?
Sounds like you haven't thought that far into it.
So you just loft up the notion that more stuff should be produced here even though people (including yourself) don't want the stuff that's produced here.
If they were capable of producing something of value the public wanted and needed, why wouldn't the public already expend their resources to hire them to do it?
Infrastructure is built by highly educated and trained proven professional firms, not unemployed people holding shovels. All the infrastructure spending in the world will not employ our unemployed and underemployed.
The question is based off of an Alex Pollock article at Real Clear Markets.
Would You Take 77 Cents For Every Dollar Social Security Owes You? | RealClearMarkets
So would you do it?
Would you support changes if it means not screwing over younger generations even more?
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?