• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security Fix

Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model

  • Total voters
    75
BitterPill said:
If there are ways to save SS for future generations, why kill SS?
Click to expand...

I don't think we should kill SS. I think we should reform SS to make it much, much, much better, and have it provide more for our low-income retirees. As laid out.
 
cpwill said:
pbrauer, why against? modification folks; what are they?
Click to expand...

The only way I would go for any deprivation of SS revenue is to also allow any resulting SS shortfalls to be covered by the general fund. Then it would not be destructive of the SS mandate. That way we can have our cake and eat it too.
 
cpwill said:
I don't think we should kill SS. I think we should reform SS to make it much, much, much better, and have it provide more for our low-income retirees. As laid out.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I can't accept that garbage.

Thanks anyway!
 
PirateMk1 said:
Its actually one way to really differentiate us from the rest of the world, democratizing wealth accumulation and more importantly begin a cycle of saving and invest on a scale not yet seen. Its a hell of a lot better than some Ponzi scheme. Another benefit is it will start making people really look at their government and what it is doing as it would be directly affecting THEIR future and I absolutely love that idea.
Click to expand...

I like that phrase. Stolen. :D

But yeah, this would make our people fabulously wealthy over time, creating a future where everyone retires a millionaire or multimillionaire (in today's money). Instead of desperately trying to figure out how to claw enough from our children, we'll be figuring out how to best allocate the massive wealth we are leaving them.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: Mathematical reality doesn't care what you accept :)
Click to expand...

You said, "I don't think we should kill SS," which I find disingenuous at best after re-reading the post you started this thread with. If you're going to lie about that, what's the use?
 
BitterPill said:
You said, "I don't think we should kill SS," which I find disingenuous at best after re-reading the post you started this thread with. If you're going to lie about that, what's the use?
Click to expand...
This proposal is to improve and strengthen Social Security, making it endlessly sustainable while providing greater benefits to our seniors. That's not killing a program.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
I like that phrase. Stolen. :D

But yeah, this would make our people fabulously wealthy over time, creating a future where everyone retires a millionaire or multimillionaire (in today's money). Instead of desperately trying to figure out how to claw enough from our children, we'll be figuring out how to best allocate the massive wealth we are leaving them.
Click to expand...

I like it too and you are welcome to share it with the world.

Hey we are already one per centers, its time we act like it.
 
cpwill said:
This proposal is to improve and strengthen Social Security, making it endlessly sustainable while providing greater benefits to our seniors. That's not killing a program.
Click to expand...

'Partially' privatizing SS not only does away with SS, it leaves Americans in a vulnerable position. If there is a huge stock market crash, there will be next to nothing for a generation of those slated to retire. Plus, putting one's eggs in the hands of private investors runs risks of its own.

I think maintaining SS in its present state is wiser. People will still be able to invest in private retirement schemes, and they will always have SS to fall back on if the markets go awry, or if their private retirement funds get robbed.

What I find a bit troubling is that you pretend you aren't for gutting SS. Why don't you just come out and admit you are?
 
BitterPill said:
'Partially' privatizing SS not only does away with SS, it leaves Americans in a vulnerable position. If there is a huge stock market crash, there will be next to nothing for a generation of those slated to retire.
Click to expand...

:) You didn't read the thread.

1. No, it doesn't do away with SS.
2. Nor does it leave Americans in a vulnerable position due to the mandated minimum benefits and government guarantee
3. I ran the numbers for every single post-war cohort. Had the worst-performing cohort retired in the middle of the lowest point of the 2008/2009 market meltdown..... they still would have done better than they would have under Social (in)Security.

Plus, putting one's eggs in the hands of private investors runs risks of its own.

I think maintaining SS in its present state is wiser
Click to expand...

There are many ways to describe that. "Wiser", I don't think, is one of them. SS as it is currently structured is drawing on the General Fund, helping to drive us towards bankruptcy, and inevitably going to lead to us telling low-income seniors to suck it up and take benefit cuts.

What I find a bit troubling is that you pretend you aren't for gutting SS. Why don't you just come out and admit you are?
Click to expand...

Because I am not. I am for fixing SS from it's current, deeply flawed pay-go structure that gives very little, taking from those who need it the most to give to those who need it the least.
 
cpwill said:
:) You didn't read the thread.

1. No, it doesn't do away with SS.
2. Nor does it leave Americans in a vulnerable position due to the mandated minimum benefits and government guarantee
3. I ran the numbers for every single post-war cohort. Had the worst-performing cohort retired in the middle of the lowest point of the 2008/2009 market meltdown..... they still would have done better than they would have under Social (in)Security.



There are many ways to describe that. "Wiser", I don't think, is one of them. SS as it is currently structured is drawing on the General Fund, helping to drive us towards bankruptcy, and inevitably going to lead to us telling low-income seniors to suck it up and take benefit cuts.



Because I am not. I am for fixing SS from it's current, deeply flawed pay-go structure that gives very little, taking from those who need it the most to give to those who need it the least.
Click to expand...

Take this as an example: In your post that started this thread you claim that SS is unconstitutional, yet you now claim you don't want to get rid of SS.

Are you saying you support a program that you think is unconstitutional?
 
BitterPill said:
Take this as an example: In your post that started this thread you claim that SS is unconstitutional, yet you now claim you don't want to get rid of SS.

Are you saying you support a program that you think is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Yup. I justify this by arguing that A) we have had such a system for a long time and people have adjusted to depend on and plan on it. Therefore, B) while simply shifting to a Constitutionally limited government overnight would be chaotic and destructive, moving in that direction by making the program more Constitutional would allow us to better make our people independent and our government less controlling, leading us there over time. At some point, the size of these roll over accounts is going to grow to the point where the forced savings necessary to ensure financial independence in retirement will be able to shrink.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Yup. I justify this by arguing that A) we have had such a system for a long time and people have adjusted to depend on and plan on it. Therefore, B) while simply shifting to a Constitutionally limited government overnight would be chaotic and destructive, moving in that direction by making the program more Constitutional would allow us to better make our people independent and our government less controlling, leading us there over time. At some point, the size of these roll over accounts is going to grow to the point where the forced savings necessary to ensure financial independence in retirement will be able to shrink.
Click to expand...

You freely admit that you support an unconstitutional program.

That's a new one.
 
BitterPill said:
You freely admit that you support an unconstitutional program.

That's a new one.
Click to expand...

:shrug: we are already there, and suddenly jarring us back to Constitutional levels of governance would do harm, and result in backlash. Better to move us there in ways that benefit the populace, and prepare the people for independence and self-reliance again.

I'm in favor of getting rid of (most) Federal aid to the poor by replacing those (80 odd) programs with a single Negative Income Tax for very similar reasons.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: we are already there, and suddenly jarring us back to Constitutional levels of governance would do harm, and result in backlash. Better to move us there in ways that benefit the populace, and prepare the people for independence and self-reliance again.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
cpwill said:
I'm in favor of getting rid of (most) Federal aid to the poor by replacing those (80 odd) programs with a single Negative Income Tax for very similar reasons.
Click to expand...

That just could work, but does it mean you think Social Security is federal aid to the poor?
 
cpwill said:
Yup. I justify this by arguing that A) we have had such a system for a long time and people have adjusted to depend on and plan on it. Therefore, B) while simply shifting to a Constitutionally limited government overnight would be chaotic and destructive, moving in that direction by making the program more Constitutional would allow us to better make our people independent and our government less controlling, leading us there over time. At some point, the size of these roll over accounts is going to grow to the point where the forced savings necessary to ensure financial independence in retirement will be able to shrink.
Click to expand...

I went back and did some quick math. If we assume that average household income climbs at a slow rate from here on out (a quarter of a percent), and that rates of return are less in the next century than they were over the last century (inflation adjusted CAGR of 6% v 6.8%), then we can reduce the necessary tax/savings rate on income from 10% to 7.5% by the middle of this century (~2060), and at the same time reduce the rollover-tax from 50% to 20%, while still providing major revenues to the government (for which we now have no costs). The third generation, at those rates, will automatically receive (average birthrate) about $800K (Inflation Adjusted) per when their parents pass on, and that amount grows slightly with each following generation.

Figuring for our lower income folks, cut that average wage in half, and they're still passing on half a mil (which alone will produce a monthly retirement benefit of $2K) by the third generation to each of their children. And when you figure for married couples, that doubles right back :) And, of course, if we do even as well as we did over the last century (major market crashes, Great Depression, and all), those numbers skyrocket upwards. Pretty cool :)
 
Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Though the low likelihood of it passing are depressing (far more likely we'll keep a crappy structure and just reduce benefits), it really excites me when I think about the long term effects. How much would we explode as a people if we regained self-reliance?

That just could work, but does it mean you think Social Security is federal aid to the poor?
Click to expand...

The NIT proposal (here) could include Social Security or not. The problem is, doing so would have us cut benefits for current and near-retirees who saved money/earned pensions over their lifetime. If we have to cut benefits for someone, it's better to cut it for those who handle it without privation, but I'd rather find ways to avoid it.
 
cpwill said:
Though the low likelihood of it passing are depressing (far more likely we'll keep a crappy structure and just reduce benefits), it really excites me when I think about the long term effects. How much would we explode as a people if we regained self-reliance?



The NIT proposal (here) could include Social Security or not. The problem is, doing so would have us cut benefits for current and near-retirees who saved money/earned pensions over their lifetime. If we have to cut benefits for someone, it's better to cut it for those who handle it without privation, but I'd rather find ways to avoid it.
Click to expand...

We wouldn't need Social Security, would we? If the elderly are not able to work, then the negative income tax would more than make up for what they'd lose in SS.

Such a system would put an end to most poverty rather quickly. Of course, there would be those who would use the negative income tax money to gamble or buy drugs, and would still be on the street, but there will always be such people under any system.

That sounds a lot like Frank Apsia's idea. I'll see if I can find a reference.

You do realize, of course, that discussion of such a reform is purely academic, and that it would never get passed by the current Congress?
 
Dittohead not! said:
We wouldn't need Social Security, would we? If the elderly are not able to work, then the negative income tax would more than make up for what they'd lose in SS.
Click to expand...

That depends on what they are drawing from other sources.

So, say a couple has $500K in retirement savings, and are drawing off 5% (25,000) a year. If you set the "Senior NIT" at 250% of an FPL of a simplified $10K/adult, then the monthly "SS check" for the both of them together is $1,041.67. If one member of the couple dies, the benefit goes away entirely. So that individual would lose 100% of their SS, and, as a couple, they would lose whatever SS they were drawing over the $1,041.67.

Such a system would put an end to most poverty rather quickly
Click to expand...

The NIT would put an end to poverty instantly (if we applied it to all people) or mostly instantly (if we put in work requirements for able-bodied adults who aren't the primary caregiver for children).

Of course, there would be those who would use the negative income tax money to gamble or buy drugs, and would still be on the street, but there will always be such people under any system.
Click to expand...

And that's a criticism of the UBI, but I think applying work requirements to the NIT could help with that.

That sounds a lot like Frank Apsia's idea. I'll see if I can find a reference.

You do realize, of course, that discussion of such a reform is purely academic, and that it would never get passed by the current Congress?
Click to expand...

:shrug: eventually our system is going to collapse under it's own weight. The UBI movement is winning converts in Europe, and unites the Libertarians and Socialists here in the US. I think there is growth potential for a solve like the NIT.

The SS Reform, however? No, I think that the likelihood of us actually improving SS are extremely slim. We're going to cut benefits and raise taxes, instead. :doh
 
cpwill said:
That depends on what they are drawing from other sources.

So, say a couple has $500K in retirement savings, and are drawing off 5% (25,000) a year. If you set the "Senior NIT" at 250% of an FPL of a simplified $10K/adult, then the monthly "SS check" for the both of them together is $1,041.67. If one member of the couple dies, the benefit goes away entirely. So that individual would lose 100% of their SS, and, as a couple, they would lose whatever SS they were drawing over the $1,041.67.



The NIT would put an end to poverty instantly (if we applied it to all people) or mostly instantly (if we put in work requirements for able-bodied adults who aren't the primary caregiver for children).



And that's a criticism of the UBI, but I think applying work requirements to the NIT could help with that.



:shrug: eventually our system is going to collapse under it's own weight. The UBI movement is winning converts in Europe, and unites the Libertarians and Socialists here in the US. I think there is growth potential for a solve like the NIT.

The SS Reform, however? No, I think that the likelihood of us actually improving SS are extremely slim. We're going to cut benefits and raise taxes, instead. :doh
Click to expand...

I like the idea of work requirements for non retirees. Would that mean, though, that someone who doesn't work would have no benefits, or less benefits from the NIT?

Seems to me that people who work should have more than people who don't, but that's just me.

It also would seem that the minimum wage would be unneeded?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I like the idea of work requirements for non retirees. Would that mean, though, that someone who doesn't work would have no benefits, or less benefits from the NIT?
Click to expand...

It would depend on how you set it up (there are a variety of options). Since the NIT is also intended to replace Unemployment Benefits, there would be a given number of completely unemployed people on it at all times - those in transition from one spot to the other - preferably with a time limit. Able bodied adults should have work-esque requirements (which I would have include things like school attendance and hours of volunteering/public works/etc), but stay at home moms probably shouldn't. People have been decrying that "you can't make a living for a family on a single income anymore" for years, well, let's change that.

Seems to me that people who work should have more than people who don't, but that's just me.

It also would seem that the minimum wage would be unneeded?
Click to expand...

It would. In fact, with that reform, we should get rid of the MW entirely, in order to ensure that jobs are available for all skill levels. Otherwise we risk truly trapping people out of both working and welfare.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
It would depend on how you set it up (there are a variety of options). Since the NIT is also intended to replace Unemployment Benefits, there would be a given number of completely unemployed people on it at all times - those in transition from one spot to the other - preferably with a time limit. Able bodied adults should have work-esque requirements (which I would have include things like school attendance and hours of volunteering/public works/etc), but stay at home moms probably shouldn't. People have been decrying that "you can't make a living for a family on a single income anymore" for years, well, let's change that.



It would. In fact, with that reform, we should get rid of the MW entirely, in order to ensure that jobs are available for all skill levels. Otherwise we risk truly trapping people out of both working and welfare.
Click to expand...

It would certainly simplify things a great deal, and would work better than what we have currently.

So, who's going to pass it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It would certainly simplify things a great deal, and would work better than what we have currently.

So, who's going to pass it?
Click to expand...

The NIT is a possibility, I think. Just not for several years, until someone else has tried it.

SS Reform probably isn't going to get passed by anyone - we're going to let our old age entitlement system crash instead.
 
cpwill said:
The NIT is a possibility, I think. Just not for several years, until someone else has tried it.

SS Reform probably isn't going to get passed by anyone - we're going to let our old age entitlement system crash instead.
Click to expand...

When it looks like it's about to crash, something will be done to save it. Seniors, after all, vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom