 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Isn't it kind of late to be investing the surpluses?
The boomers start cashing cheques in a few years. Cha-CHING! |
And that's a problem that can be dealt with however. Yes, it will be a burden, but it is a bearable burden. There are multiple good strategies to deal with the problem, such as raising the age you get benefits from 65.
In the future we can pass laws, even amendments, to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Again, the issue is that there needs to be a program and will always be a program to help those elderly that need it. Why? Because people decided they don't like large numbers of the elderly to have no source of food, no home, and to die in the streets. It happens some now in America, but much less than it once did. This is a value that people have, a value of treasuring human life and seeking to help it.
There are pragmatic ways to enact this goal, and an non-pragmatic way is to say "let them fend for themselves" because that simply doesn't work well enough. The Government handles such things much, much better than private charity ever did. Yes, the government has problems with spending here and there, but it can and will get better. Laws can be passed to regulate how money is spent; Gore wanted a law passed to make sure money couldn't get taken out of the S.S. fund and spent elsewhere, Kerry wanted a pay-as-you-go law passed. There are was to make the government more responsible, and as the government ages and learns this will improve.
If you don't agree with decreasing the numbers of elderly on the streets, then that is your decisions, your opinion, but don't blame me or anyone else if you are fairly considered rather cold-hearted and uncaring of others.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I largely agree with you, but...
Wouldn;t it be better to allow people to arrange their own affaris and have taxation take care of those who fell through the cracks?
An income, or wealth based, test to become entitled to the public program. |
It would get used by everyone then, since you could spend all of your money and then get into the above program. Rather than encouraging that sort of behavior, it is best to just have a guarantee in (though perhaps the extremely rich* wouldn't have this unless they lost their extreme wealth).
-Drachasor
*And I mean people with millions of dollars and the like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Welfare could work like that. It doesn't though, does it? |
No. Welfare for non-retirees needs some adjustments. At the very least it should have New Deal style jobs associated with it; they give you *something to do* even if it isn't needed. Just so that people stay used to the idea of working. (Well, exceptions for those that *can't* work). Then some additional incentive to get a real job.
For retirees, they just need a monthly check, imho, at what age they start to get it and how much they get would vary, of course.
Right now with S.S. you always get money no matter how much you have. Even Bill Gates will get it when he is 65 (or whatever the age is when he reaches it). He'll probably get more than the average person too. A little crazy if you ask me (though it would be crazy for him to start getting checks if he became bankrupt at 80 for example).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Micha
|
 |
Technical University of Ilmenau, Germany
Oct 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
No. Welfare for non-retirees needs some adjustments. At the very least it should have New Deal style jobs associated with it; they give you *something to do* even if it isn't needed. Just so that people stay used to the idea of working. (Well, exceptions for those that *can't* work). Then some additional incentive to get a real job.
For retirees, they just need a monthly check, imho, at what age they start to get it and how much they get would vary, of course.
-Drachasor |
Good idea. Copied from the German System? 
We have exactly that in Germany. It works as long as there´s a large enough base that pays in and only a small remainder in the upper-ages-class that receives. We called it "Generation´s treaty".
Now here´s the problem:
In Western societies, especially those with healthcare programs, the population structure is less pyramidal, rather it equals a vase. There is a growing number of retirees, whereas the number of people paying in is stagnant or (as here in Europe) declining.
Of course you in the USA don´t have to worry about declining birth rates... yet. It will get you too, sooner or later. Although I am a Socialist Democrat, although I believe in welfare and healthcare, I have to admit that it doesn´t work in non-communist countries. It´s just for the fact that most people want their slice and thus pretend to need welfare, while others simply are too lazy to get work. Here in Germany we are in one of the deepest economic depressions because of social security programs starting to no longer finance themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
It isn't a pyramid scheme. I am getting pretty annoyed with people trying to blow things out of proportion, so try not to be an idiot* and do that.
Secondly, you need to understand how the middle and lower class works and their function in society. They serve the role of keeping the economy going. They get money and then most of them spend the money; they are not good at saving it and spending it helps the economy a great deal. Since there will always be many people that don't save money for retirement, there must be a system to help those people. The only sensible and fair system is one that helps everyone since otherwise it opens itself for exploitation.
Proposing that people "just save their money" simply is an idea that will never work, and historically never has worked. As such I don't think it is a reasonable proposal, since it doesn't deal with the realities of the situation, just like advocating abstinence and only abstinence is a foolish policy.
-Drachasor
Edit: *I do not mean to offend, but my annoyance/anger with misrepresentation is getting the best of me. |
actually I have to agree with you. Most americans are not disciplined enough to save their money. I happen to be, but I'm not like most people .
It is beneficial to society as a whole to maintain social security. Sometimes us smart people who know how to invest have to make sacrifices for the betterment of society. That sounds socialist. But maintaining society works in our favour. If our system collapses, we will be in a world of hurt. I've supported socialism in the past, it has many good qualities to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
Clearly social security needs to be saved. And clearly there is not enough money being put in to social security to save itself. I don't agree with raising the age, because that does not benefit african americans with lower life spans. And it does not benefit me  . Males in my family do not live to be that old.
The solution to me seems simple. We take money from other programs to keep social security going. All these years we have taken money from social security to fund other programs. It's time we reverse that trend. Yes it will be painful. But once the bulk of baby boomers die, we really head into a generation that is much, much smaller.
It's time for a little belt tightening of the federal goverment. |
Health problems can and will be fixed, and I am not sure wether the African American thing is true. Whites certainly have diseases they are more likely to get, and it is possible that the differences in life expectency are merely from more young blacks being killed because more young blacks are in violent urban areas. That can mess up an average; one would have to make a study adjusting for socio-economic position to tell.
Hmm, I suppose you could always increase the starting age by 5 years (maybe 10) and add in a clause stating that if, in an expert's opinion) your life expectency is 5 more years or less, you can get S.S. for those years (perhaps assuming you are 18 or older), and S.S. would stop if the prognosis changed.
Edit: A prognosis on someone's current life expectency is much, much different than the average lifespan in the nation.
That's an idea though, I don't know how many people below 75 or so have a life expetency of 5 more years. There would be some fraud with that, but it might work. The Government would have to go to the Treasury department to get a cost estimate and see how much it would change things.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Oh, and people are generally living longer, healthier lives, so I think increasing how long they work is not a bad idea.
Moving the retirement age up does save a lot of money. I can go look up the figures if you want.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
I find Drachasor's resistance to Bush's SS plan to be strange. He wants to set aside money to invest in order to get a better return on it, rather than simply using it to fund current government operations. Which is exactly what Bush proposes.
|
I am saying that after we are out of this dangerous area we should institute laws to help preserve S.S. money and invest it wisely. Right now we should just make sure all the money coming in is only used for S.S. Beyond that we should adjust other factors, pay some extra money, and the like to help us through this difficult time.
We cannot, however, afford to throw a substantial amount of S.S. money that is coming in to somewhere else.
Oh, and most people suck at investing, and Bush wants them to invest the money themselves. Probably half the people that think they don't suck actually do suck also (and some of the people that think they do suck would invest it themselves anyways if given the choice). People *can* be very stupid sometimes, even otherwise intelligent individuals. Government policy needs to keep this in mind everywhere (such as getting rid of semi-confusing/complicated ballots, among other things). Certainly I'd like it if everyone was extremely capable in everything, or even just competent in everything, but that isn't the case and never will be without excessive modification of the human race.*
-Drachasor
*When this is done, we can talk about what policies should be changed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
I am saying that after we are out of this dangerous area we should institute laws to help preserve S.S. money and invest it wisely. Right now we should just make sure all the money coming in is only used for S.S. Beyond that we should adjust other factors, pay some extra money, and the like to help us through this difficult time.
|
But this is what is already done! Government still takes in (marginally) more money than it puts out. You say the government can't be allowed to spend this money but how would that even be possible? Wherever the government keeps the money it will still be in the governments possession. If the government runs a deficit in the rest of it's budget you create the grossly stupid scenario of the government buying even more debt creating an even larger drain of revenue in the form of interest on that debt all while the surplus SS money is stuffed in a huge federal mattress (since any investment of SS money is regarded as intolerably risky for some reason) getting eaten by inflation. Furthermore when the payment day arrives the government will in reality find that it doesn't actually have the money it stuffed in the mattress in that the moment it puts the money back in it's 'checking account' the balance will still be below zero due to the enormous debt load piled up over the years. You can't fix the federal deficit with shell games. To save the ss money it has to leave the possession of the federal government.
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
We cannot, however, afford to throw a substantial amount of S.S. money that is coming in to somewhere else.
Oh, and most people suck at investing, and Bush wants them to invest the money themselves. Probably half the people that think they don't suck actually do suck also (and some of the people that think they do suck would invest it themselves anyways if given the choice). People *can* be very stupid sometimes, even otherwise intelligent individuals. Government policy needs to keep this in mind everywhere (such as getting rid of semi-confusing/complicated ballots, among other things). Certainly I'd like it if everyone was extremely capable in everything, or even just competent in everything, but that isn't the case and never will be without excessive modification of the human race.*
-Drachasor
*When this is done, we can talk about what policies
should be changed. |
The problem is that you have not shown how the government has demonstrated any less fiscally irresponsible stupidity than the populace you think it can rescue from their own stupidity. How can a carefree spendthrift who has never had a postive baalance sheet in his life ever hope to safe keep a trust fund for someone else?
For the record I don't tolerate people starving in the streets but I'd much rather deal with that by abolishing SS and expanding federal welfare. I hate welfare but SS has all of the disadvantages of welfare with a few extra to spare and a much larger financial scale than even the most grossly generous wlefare scheme.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2004 13:09
|