• 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!

Fixing Social Security

How Do You FIx Social Security?

  • Total voters
    21
I'd with something that has been shown to work better.
The Chilean private pension system, while having it's problems, is a better place to move the nation towards.

It actually invests the money in income producing assets.
It provides a basic framework to start with.
 
Chappy said:
Wrong. Your comments demonstrate you actually don't understand Social Security. It's not a savings plan. It's an insurance program. Again, the program doesn't run into shortfalls for a quarter century and even then it's able to pay the overwhelming majority of its obligations. Slight modifications will assure its solvency for many decades to come.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. it's not an insurance program (it is supposed to act like one). it is a tax program. thus sayeth the law thus sayeth the FDR administration and thus sayeth the Supreme Court.

furthermore, Social Security has already run into shortfalls - and the CBO says this is now a permanent feature of the program. The only way Social Security remains solvent and structured as it currently is would be if we got rid of Medicare. But we are rather unlikely to do that, and so Social Security will never be able to draw from the General Fund the way it would need to in order to survive.
 
For those under 40 - I'd support removing SS altogether as an option. Have the government pay out what was paid in for the < 40 crowd and let people invest it - OR - leave it right where it is.

If they leave it, raise the age to 70 years old for retirement BUT, pass an amendment or some other permanent legislation that cannot be subverted by Congress or the President which makes it impossible for SS dollars to be used for ANY executive or legislative project other than, Social Security. It would need to be "untouchable".
 
How about just mandating that people invest in a retirement plan. It doesn't have to be social security. The government could set up a system of rating funds or stock if they want to provide some guidance. Or better yet, teach mandatory courses in economics and investment in high school.
 
haymarket said:
pop the cap while freezing benefit levels plus a modest inflation allowance

93% of Americans pay FICA on 100% of their earnings. That figure should be 100% of Americans.
Click to expand...

No, if the wealthy get less, then they should pay less.
 
American said:
No, if the wealthy get less, then they should pay less.
Click to expand...

The program is called SOCIAL Security because it is a program which benefits SOCIETY... thus the Social part of it.

And individual retirement account is called ........ an individual retirement account. That gives you what you pay into it since it is just for you.
 
Redress said:
Source thread is based upon: Amending Social Security: how to's surface during national debt talks - Yahoo! News



I think we all know something has to be done to make SS solvent and last, or at least stop draining the budget. The article lists 5 possible solutions. Please refer to the article for specifics. You can pick more than one option.

Note: Poll incoming, please be patient while I type.
Click to expand...

I say raise the retirement age and raise it every time the average life expectancy rises. I think as long as you pay into it you should be compensated for it, so there should be no means testing. If they want to prevent the wealthy from getting it then they should be allowed to opt out of paying into social security.
 
Ockham said:
For those under 40 - I'd support removing SS altogether as an option. Have the government pay out what was paid in for the < 40 crowd and let people invest it - OR - leave it right where it is.

If they leave it, raise the age to 70 years old for retirement BUT, pass an amendment or some other permanent legislation that cannot be subverted by Congress or the President which makes it impossible for SS dollars to be used for ANY executive or legislative project other than, Social Security. It would need to be "untouchable".
Click to expand...

the problem becomes, it was set up as a pyramid scheme. you need money coming in from those below to pay those currently retired.
 
haymarket said:
The program is called SOCIAL Security because it is a program which benefits SOCIETY... thus the Social part of it.
Click to expand...

really? I could have sworn the checks went to individuals.
 
American said:
How about just mandating that people invest in a retirement plan. It doesn't have to be social security. The government could set up a system of rating funds or stock if they want to provide some guidance. Or better yet, teach mandatory courses in economics and investment in high school.
Click to expand...

Chile did something very like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom