Retirement Age

I'm not really opposed to this idea. Although I wish we had Al Gore's lockbox from 2000 to avoid some of this mess...fiscal conservatism met with severe derision by the alleged beacons of conservatism themselves who really are nothing more than the epitome of hypocrisy.

Why not just abolish the SSSystem and let people be responsible for taking care of themselves ???.

You know... Planning ahead? ... Saving throughout you life so you'll have money set aside for when you can no longer work? ... Why is that such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

Not everyone can. And the response to that from Republicans is "well, fuck those people." The response to that from caring, compassionate individuals is "well, they're humans, too...shit...better do what we can for them as a civilized society."

Oh, but they can...

But it takes sacrifice and self control throughout ones life. Bad decisions made repeatedly throughout ones life have consequences.

And apparently republicans don't have a lock on this attitude! (as I'm not one)

When there are abundant resources and they are being hoarded by a very small few, such sacrifice and self control (and a shit ton of luck because a single medical issue that isn't your fault can bankrupt you) should be unnecessary.

Ya, that "uniquely American" quality is not something to be envied.

Then why should ANYone work for ANYthing???
Just getting up and going to work is some measure of sacrifice (there are certainly other things I would RATHER be doing)

Everything should just be given to us by the government! (which gets it's $ by taking it from US.)



Keep in mind, that when the tax system becomes such that EVERY dime over $250k that ANYbody makes must be given to the government (and tell me how else we will pay for all this crap.) Then nobody will even try to make more than that 250k... and tax receipts will drop to such that the government will have NO $$ to fund ANYthing!.
(Yes, that 250k number was pulled out of thin air to illustrate a point... I don't know that anyone has publicly said what the income cap will be yet.)

You think in such hyperbole. Society will come crashing down when lazy people stop wanting to do things! AHH!!! No.

I like how you selectively quoted me there as well...completely ignoring the other point that a single stroke of bad luck can bankrupt your entire family and NO ONE SHOULD LIVE WITH THAT KIND OF FEAR.

Why not? ... where is the right to be free from fear enumerated in our (or any nation's) constitution?

If you don't want to be afraid, then take no risks... live extremely conservatively.

You don't have the right to happiness... you have the right to PURSUE happiness.

Where is the virtue in being forced to live in fear over medical bill induced bankruptcies all because we treat sickness as a for-profit industry? As a civilized society, that's just one of the things that we are capable of doing away with and should because it's the right thing to do. Where's the compassion for our fellow man? I'm really fucking sick and tired of this "sucks to be you" mentality that is thriving in this country today.

And of course you take my quote out of context again and change the scope of it. I never said people should have a right to live completely without fear. I said that certain fears that are easily assuaged (specifically healthcare related) have no virtue in our society.

I don't know of any Republicans that are calling for large-scale elimination of social security, welfare, medicare. They do seek reform, because none of these programs are working efficiently. Moreover, it is tempting to look at the welfare states of the EU and say what a feasible system it is, but the bottom is starting to fall out there, too. The economic facts are that the most efficient fiscal mix has much reduced social welfare spending than represented by current levels, and that the private sector seems to be increasingly good at this (see the Gates Foundation).

The reforms that Republicans seek just line the pockets of their corporate puppet masters. Efficiency is the last thing they seek. Privatization and deregulation is what they seek. And we've seen the disastrous results of going too far in that direction this last decade. There is nothing that says government can't run efficiently.

We should have had a lockbox on social security a very long time ago. We should decimate our defense spending. We should promote an educated populace.

I'm not trying to get into an ideological debate. I personally disagree with socialism or even watered-down EU style social democracy, but I'm not making that the point. I am, however, making the point that there are a lot elements to the overall debate that you are missing or have incorrect. The economy is not a simple equation. Not all debt spending is created equal.

Democratic officials tend to receive more money from big corporate than Republicans do, so I don't really see a unique connection between Republicans and "corporate puppet masters." Big corporations tend to prefer soft-regulation, of the sort most Democrats and many Republicans seem to favor, because it allows them to operate with reduced competition. By nature of having non-incentivized pay structures for most employees and share-price incentives at the C-level, big corporations are revenue driven, not profit driven, so they are perfectly happy to work under restrictions. They will generally prevent deregulation if they can, in favor of soft-regulatory policies. The bailout can be considered the ultimate denouement of soft-regulatory policies, not de-regulation.

Defense spending has risen considerably under Obama, so it's not really a partisan issue either. Moreover, defense spending has less economic impact than welfare spending, because without many exceptions it creates US jobs and large amounts of domestically-held intellectual property (e.g. patents). Cutting SS and medicare would have more net benefit on the economy, because a much larger portion of the resultant dollars are not fed back into the domestic economy. That is not to say that defense spending should be exempt from reduction, but it does make a point about its relative value.

The "lockbox" is silly, because there already is this thing called an IRA that is great for saving money in. Nobody will ever vote for federally mandated retirement savings.

What evidence do you have about not promoting an educated populace? I think it is clear that education is promoted. In parts of the world (and even among different US cultures), more is done with a lot less, because the students themselves embrace education. This is very easy to observe.

The lockbox was never silly. The fact you would even say that is silly. The lockbox was to keep the surplus away from the rest of congress so they can't spend it. Instead of going year to year, SS could build up some savings.

How do we not promote an educated populace? Look a the numbers:
*41 per cent say Jesus Christ will return within the next 40 years
*64 percent of Americans support teaching creationism alongside evolution in the classroom
*Half of all Americans believe they are protected by guardian angels, one-fifth say they've heard God speak to them, one-quarter say they have witnessed miraculous healings, 16 percent say they've received one and 8 percent say they pray in tongues

Guys, SAFETY NET. That's what all public financial help for individuals should be about. No liberal is sitting around saying, money for everyone! w000t!

The better off of us, can help out the less fortunate, but in a way that a safety net catches those who fall on hard times, yet able to lift them out and help them to be more productive and return to contributing to society.

There will always be those, eg. mentally or physically disabled people that will need more help than others (unless you're arguing for eugenics), but in most cases the "less fortunate" in the developed world become "less fortunate" because of losing jobs, global economic shifts, medical challenges, and so on.

As for Social Security, I can't speak of specifics as I'm not in the US.

But, in many countries around the world, there is like a "compulsory 401K". Could such a system be implemented in the US (if it hasn't already)? For example, whenever you work, the employer must contribute to your retirement fund, say 10% of your paycheck. Employers compensate by slightly lower wages, but that could be acceptable since it's basically "forcing" people to save for the future, where they wouldn't otherwise. In countries where this is implemented, this "compulsory 401K" fund cannot be withdrawn from until your retirement age unless there are serious medical expenses, etc.

How would the above program compare/ be integrated with Social Security? If possible?

Apologies if I'm not up to date with US terminology. I had an IRA and/or 401K or something like that, about 10 years ago. Can't remember since I left the US 7 years ago.

Believing in God doesn't have to equate to blatant stupidity. It's a pity fundamental Christianity promotes that.

For me, Christ returning is about oneself reaching a "Christ-like" state of forgiveness and happiness. Teaching creationism alongside evolution has a challenge in that what kind of creationism would you teach? The 7 day version? The intelligent design version? The alien-ancient-astronaut version? Until they can sort that out...

I'm not a Christian, by the way, I would just call myself agnostic or, gnostic.

The problem with your argument here, at least in regard to Social Security, is that it is for everyone. It's not just a "safety net" for those who ran into to a rough spot and were unable to save for retirement. It is paid out to everyone.



And, in the case of Social Security, it isn't the "better off of us" helping out the less fortunate. It is transferring wealth from the working young to the non-working old.



I'd guess at least 10% lower wages and probably more, because administering the plan has to be paid for too.

Personally I have the problem with paternalistic attitude of forcing people to do the things that are good for them. This is rather arrogant and presumptuous and it suggests that the exact same things needs to be done by all people at the same time and leaves little room for the individual to make the choices and trade-offs that fits their own choices, values and desires.

Social Security is the most regressive tax we have. Uncap it and we fix it.

Fair enough... That's why instead of forcing people by taxes to pay for social security, you could instead get them to save for their own retirement through employer and self-funded contributions.


Again, I always try to give an international perspective on these boards... You see, right now, as I understand, social security is funded out of public debt. In many countries, employer and self-contributed retirement savings go to something like a mutual fund. Therefore the fund increases in value over time, paying for administrative costs, and giving compounded interest to the retirement savings of an individual. This fund normally cannot be accessed by the government for other spending - perhaps the "locked box" you guys are talking about.


Well, as I understand, social security is a compulsory tax. Therefore that's forcing people to pay for it. I would say shifting it to forcing people to have a "compulsory IRA/401K" is more sensible. The other option would be to let people do whatever they wanted, and then those who are old that didn't save, we leave them out to suffer? Or, then, have to come up with a safety net for these people. The government has to cover its own ass sometimes, I think.

There is some wiggle room in what I suggest. For example, in the Australian model employers must contribute to the retirement fund. However, the funds are not managed by the government but various financial and fund management companies. The individual can choose which fund to use and their investment strategies - whether they want to be more aggressive or more conservative in how their savings are invested. Moreover, the individual can self-contribute to the fund if they want. They don't have to, but if they do, then I think they get a tax deduction, up to a certain limit and in some cases the government contributes a matching amount, up to a certain limit.

Additional wiggle room would be for those running their own business, they might be exempted. Those on contract could also be exempted, which is the case for me where I live. I choose a higher wage by being on contract, have more flexible hours, but I do not get that 10% benefit from employers and my retirement fund is not growing at the moment. I always have the option of self-contributions or other plans I see fit.

Hey, I didn't say there shouldn't be unemployment benefits. Again, the Australian model has unemployment benefits, medical benefits and some old age pensions for those really in rough times. This is the safety net. Australia's not perfect, it's definitely more right-leaning than Europe.

But maintain retirement funding -- make sure those who can hold employment save something for their retirement instead of spending *all* their income.

The thing that shocked me about the US is the homeless, who are almost all clearly mentally ill, just left on the streets. Surely I don't want to see more of that, in any country.

Those "normal", mentally and physically healthy people that can be productive, make them save for retirement and stop depending on them to spend, spend, spend and accumulate more and more debt because "it's good for the economy".

Those that aren't mentally and physically healthy, well of course, you got to have some basic services to take care of them. Which doesn't appear to be always the case in the US.

The fundamental issue of the US economy, from an outsider's perspective, is an economy driven by debt, at so many levels of society, from personal to institutional. It becomes crippling because then everything is always spending, and any "positive" steps are always hindered by the need to "cut costs". In other words, digging a bigger and bigger hole.

How can you say a ridiculous thing like this? Over 20 million people depend on SS to exist in the USA. Number one how old are you? Even with savings today which the bank gives no interest to speak of this is no solution for people to survive on. Sharon Angle this idiot from Nevada proposed this and this will never amount to anything from her.People all their lives worked for this SS and deserve it 100%. Including me which i am on it to survive. ga

There are many foreigners living all over the world collecting social security pensions. They worked hard and they deserve it. I retired at 62 yeas old.

French strike over plan to raise retirement age:

That won't fix anything, that will just turn it into income tax. It does not matter what you set the income tax to, you always collect 18% of gdp.

Much better to means-limit benefits (ie rich people can't collect), which would turn social security into poverty insurance - making sure you won't starve to death in your old age due to some financial mishap. Means limiting the benefits would be far better for rich people than uncapping payroll taxes, and would work better also.

I don't mind restricting my ability to collect (I won't need SS to supplement my income anyway) ... but... then... if someone else is going to get my money because they will starve without it... then they better not be smoking or drinking, among other things.
If they can afford to by cigarettes and beer, then they have excess money... no need for "social insurance" benefits.
Also no "real" milk... they can drink the powdered crap. And no "name brand" soda... in fact, no soda at all... they can drink water and like it! (I could go on, but I think you get the point.)

Now... are you SURE you want to go down that road ?

Inflation beats both.

Obamacare will fix that.

Twice a month lots of seniors take your SS tax down to Atlantic City by the busload and blow it on slots. Those who don't blow plenty on lottery tickets a/k/a "the stupid tax". I don't object to people blowing their own money on whatever stupid pursuits they desire, but I'd object to my money being wasted that way.

Fortunately seniors outnumber those carrying their load by the millions so pay up suckers! We outnumber you, and we're going to the casino!


I'm sure.

I don't care about any of that stuff - I just want a culture where people can take risks without paying the ultimate penalty of severe poverty in old age. I am positive that you would get a lot more people starting businesses in middle age in a society with a social security type safety net, than you would get in a society where there was no safety net.