Some people would like to abolish Social Security. How, exactly, would that work? I see two options:
[ul][li]Younger workers continue to contribute to Social Security, providing benefits to retirees. When the younger workers retire, they do not get Social Security benefits. Instead, they retire on the wise investments they made during their working career. Once the current retirees die off, the program is gone completely.[/li][li]Just shut it off. Younger workers will assuredly invest a portion of their salaries into a retirement plan, which will last them the rest of their lives. Current retirees will live off of the wise investments they’ve already made during their lives, and will be supported by their families.[/ul][/li]Now, I know that most politicians say that they don’t want to get rid of Social Security. I’m aware of plans to raise the retirement age and to cut benefits, but to keep the system going. Still, I remember calls from some people to just get rid of it, and to allow people to invest their money in the stock market. So my question is to the people who actually want to abolish Social Security. Which of the listed options do you want to implement? If neither, then what is your plan to abolish the system?
Basic income is an alternative. Currently the poor get little while the middle and upper class do well. So giving everyone the same amount has advantages. [The middle and upper class can continue with their stock market and other investments.]
You might have a low basic income for children, a moderate basic income for adults and a higher basic income for the elderly.
Who proposes getting rid of Soc Sec and why? If such folk exist, I’d suggest identifying them and their values/interests would help provide answers.
I have a hard time imagining how or why anyone would recommend that a wealthy developed nation not have some system similar to Social Security - even if considerably more limited in some respects.
On edit: I acknowledge that basic income would be an alternative. I doubt most of the folk advocating abolishing SS support that, tho.
It’s pretty clear that the vast majority of Americans cannot or will not save enough for retirement.
If SS were to be abolished, many older people would need to keep working or live with relatives. Most wouldn’t have nearly enough saved up to live on.
One alternative could be that your SS deductions mostly fund your own retirement. Some part of it would go into the general SS fund, but it’s more like you’re enrolled in a government sponsored savings plan. This would probably mean that low-earners and people on disability would get lower benefits than they do today.
It would be cut off, people would shortly run out of what savings they have, and become dependent on private handouts or just starve. Mostly the latter. We know because that’s the sort of thing that always happened before such programs were created.
[quote=“Johnny_L.A, post:1, topic:774381”]
[ul][li]Just shut it off. Younger workers will assuredly invest a portion of their salaries into a retirement plan, which will last them the rest of their lives. Current retirees will live off of the wise investments they’ve already made during their lives, and will be supported by their families.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
And what happens to seniors who’ve contributed to SS throughout their entire careers, yet have made few “wise investments” and have no family members to support them? Do these people simply crawl into a hole and die?
The Speaker of the House has in years past advocated converting Social Security taxes from workers into some sort of 401K-like investment scheme, just as he currently advocates turning Medicare into a system that provides for vouchers to be invested in insurance. Because, you know, the government cannot do anything right or well and the marketplace is, like, god or something. If, perhaps, popular government programs like this deny entrepreneurs the opportunity to make money off the service.
You’d have to ask those who don’t like ‘OMGsocialism’. ISTM that people believe SS is a ‘piggy bank’ where their money waits for them, rather than the contributions of workers (contributing throughout their entire careers) going to the ranks of the currently retired. For example, the Libertarian Party says, ‘Republicans and Democrats say… that your Social Security taxes are needed to pay benefits to today’s retirees.’ Which is how it’s set up.
It’s difficult to end the current system since it’s been running for so long and is so integrated into our economy and the mind-set of most people.
Probably the best place to start would be GWB’s plan to partially privatize the program. You phase it in over time, and allow investments only in what are considered extremely safe equities, and even then only a small portion of the total retirement plan for any individual. Note that was relatively small step in that direction and it was roundly criticized by both sides of the aisle. With a greater percentage of the population entering the system every day, it’s going to be political suicide to tamper with it unless it goes bankrupt.
People who want to dump SS are also, by and large, the same people who are opposed to a minimum wage.
So we will have people making 4 or 5 dollars an hour investing enough for them to retire on. What am I missing?
The magic ability to say “not my problem” and take your jet to your private island. If you had those thing’s you’d “get it” immediately.
I swear the 0.1% really consider the Philippines a fine model for the US’s future.
The Law And Order faction really miss Imelda Marcos’ efficiency, too.
I would not be all that surprised at Trump trying to imitate both Putin and Duterte.
I’d like to think our executive branch bureaucracy is professional enough to stop him at the “thinking about it” or “yelling in Cabinet” stage. Rather than in the orating about it to Youtube etc., followed by the Arpaios of the country going off fully cocked, not merely half-cocked.
The problems with that are obvious: There is no such thing as a perfectly safe equity. And if there’s a general drop in the market, even “safe” equities lose value. Tough luck if you’re depending on that money.
Also, you lose far more money to brokerage fees. And if an unscrupulous broker wants to churn your account, or put the money in bad investments, your retirement is gone and tough luck.
Expecting people to voluntarily put money away for retirement without drawing it out for new shiny object purchases is insanity. Also, there is a very large number of people in our country who don’t make enough money to be able to save anything, let alone a nest egg. These are ideas floated by rich motherfuckers who care nothing for the people they “represent”.
You’re saying that prior to Social Security there was widespread starvation among retired people?
Social Security has to be the most successful government program in history. Besides providing for the elderly and infirm it has kept the US government operating over the decades of it’s existence. Social Security taxes go into the general fund and there is no way we would have been able to pay for our modern society without that money. The opponents of the program are nothing but greedy bastards who have benefited tremendously from it and simply want to cut off the benefits to the people who have paid for them while they are the ones who have paid into the system at the lowest rate. Because of the income cutoff and capital gains exclusion for Social Security taxes the people who make the most are the ones who pay the lowest rate yet they never hesitate to take the benefits.
I’ve been following US politics since 1965.
I recall the Conservative (back when that was more than “I’ve got mine; screw you Jack”) being opposed to SS for both Fiscal and Philosophical reasons.
The last serious “tweak SS” position was to “Invest it in the Stock Market”. Then the market crashed and that idea was quietly dropped.
Even the Reaganites recognized SS as sacrosanct.
The Tea Partiers are on such a roll, they are actually brushing off an idea not proposed in 60 years.
Just as the “Repeal and Replace Obamacare*” is long on “repeal” and real short on “replace”, any “fixes” to SS are likely “axe it now and see if we can get away with doing nothing about it”.
Millennials are sometimes slighted for “always having some ‘Hustle’ going”.
That may well be because those “hustles” are their only way to bring in money.
They are the ones being pushed into the so-called “Gig Economy” - no salary, no health insurance, and don’t even think about a Pension Plan. You get a few dollars for driving someone in an unlicensed cab. Maybe make a few bucks writing some code in today’s “language of the week, OS of the month” - but don’t get pushy - there are programmers in India…
Chevy actually ran and ad for its cheapest car with a tag line of “Raise Your Hustle to a New Level”.
It was regarded as a “dog-whistle” for Millennials: This car will qualify for Uber and Lyft gigs - another way to make a few bucks.
With luck, you’ll have enough to rent a window space in an underground warehouse “loft” building.
Some observations from earlier “underground” notes:
I once knew a guy who wanted to become a professional baker - they can go anywhere and find work.
Illegals in current-day CA for whom Spanish is native language: males all learn either farm work or auto mechanic or building trade. Getting a new roof in exchange for a brick and steel fence is an example.
Having an expert car mechanic in the neighborhood who does work for 1/5 of what the car shop charges is not a bad thing.
I found a transmission cluster gear in this place when I moved in; on the other side of the fence was an old car door.
The house next door has the side and 80% of the back yard professionally paved; there is a very nice, stick-built storage building out back.
In Entertainment: if asked if you can play trombone, say “yes” - if you get the job, you have an entire day to find someone who can teach you trombone.
Everything old becomes new again. Whether it should or not.
-
- if they say “Obamacare” they hate it; if they like it, ,they call it “ACA”
What, are you guys playing Jeopardy here?
Yes, among millions of other people.
There’s a reason you don’t see famines in the US anymore; it’s because of all those evil social programs like Social Security that were put in after people* did* starve during the Great Depression.