Posted on 09/08/2011 8:19:58 AM PDT by disraeligears
The Social Security system in my opinion is definitely a ponzi scheme and what follows is a way to fix it. If you agree with this approach, please cut and paste and pass it on to other forums.
Entitlements have had sufficient dedicated taxes collected to pay for them. Alas Congress has been spending the money on other things anyway, but that doesn’t mean the accounting no longer favors the entitlements ~ just that all that other stuff is living on borrowed funds and should be stopped.
He wasn’t referring to IOU’s, he was referring to the Assets the Federal Government owns, like Federal land/resources, unless I misunderstood him.
An acre of federally owned rare earth deposits is an asset! EPA is not an asset.
Sure, that means we don't have that $29 billion anymore once we pay it, but that's a very small part of the national budget.
While that may be accurate to a degree (for now, but whoknows in 10-20 years), I know that ending all Socialism will be best for all of us, and that it has no place in the Federal Government. (States can do as they see fit according to their own constitutions, IMHO).
If you ever had taxable income and paid Social Security (and got 40 quarters worth of credits) you get SS.
IIRC, SCOTUS has already ruled that SS is simply a tax and Congress can dispose of the funds as they see fit. There is no ‘inherent right’ to SS funds, paid by you....................
They could have gotten health care for the poor in the same way. Let doctors write off nonpayment against those that do pay 1:1 but that wouldn’t have let them have control!
SS is worse than a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, greedy people voluntarily put their money into the to good to be true scam. SS is a forced confiscation of your money, work and refuse to pay up, and the federal government will send people with guns to make you do so.
Means testing turns it into a welfare system, rather than a state pension system. Like all welfare systems, it punishes the productive and prudent: if you paid your social security taxes all your working life and had the foresight to properly save for your retirement, you don’t get social security. If you were improvident and have almost no retirement income from your investments, you do. Bad idea.
The only way to keep faith with those who paid into the system and fix it, in the sense of preventing social security from dragging the whole economy into its grave when it collapses, is to gradually increase the eligibility age until the system is functionally abolished:
First, be honest and just merge the Social Security system with the general Federal budget. The smoke and mirrors of the “Trust Fund” which contains nothing but IOU’s from the Federal government serves no purpose but to deceive the general public.
Second, fix a schedule for increasing eligibility age based on current age. I propose for every year a person is below 60 years of age at the time reform legislation goes into effect, the eligibility age be increased by two months. Folks 60 and older would become eligible under the current schedule: 62 for any benefits, 66.5 for “standard” benefits, 70 for maximum benefits and a requirement that they start drawing benefits. I (at 54 year of age) would have to wait a year longer. Someone now 48 would have to wait two years longer; a newborn would have 72, 76.5 and 80 as the eligibility ages. Do the same with Medicare eligibility.
When Social Security was initiated, the age for benefits (there was only one) was 65, but the average life-expectancy was 61.4. Now the average life-expectancy is 78.3. Maybe the drift upward in eligibility ages could be stopped and the system preserved in perpetuity if folks couldn’t draw Social Security benefits until they were 3.6 years older than the average life-expectancy, but I’d rather see us eventually scrap the whole thing move to a Chilean-style pensions system (though that requires not just fixing Social Security, but a simultaneous fix of the pension system: day-one vesting and full portability of all pension contributions, like what us academicians have thanks to Andrew Carnegie.)
They might as well, since that where it ends up anyway. That, in itself would probably save tons of money. Do the same with Medicare taxes and just quit this stupidity of itemizing taxes on our pay stubs and W-2's...............
Do whatever you want, after it’s resolved to float the retirement age to ensure annual solvency without borrowing or creating a “trust fund” to be stolen by Congress.
Then, ya’ll can decide whether to means test, raise taxes, phase out for younger generations, or whatever. But SS must not be a millstone around the economic neck of Uncle Sam.
I like the lump sum idea.
Form a new IRA and pay out a lump sum at at 65.
Better than paying unemployment to people not to work.
Seniors would certainly spend some of the funds, the rest would be invested, which would create jobs elsewhere.
Eventually liberals will realize that cigarettes were the only chance that Social Security would stay afloat.
Seconded.
“payout to what was paid in plus the interest it would have earned if invested in 30 year tbills”
Who’s going to pay for that?
Actually they've come up with something much more effective because it will touch a much higher percent of the population: ObamaCare.
I think all this worry over long term SS insolvency is unwarranted. ObamaCare is guaranteed to start racheting the life expectancy downwards.
I’ve already answered that question. Additionally, I already have stated numerous times that no one is owed ANYTHING from social security, and SCOTUS has made that ruling also. Since that’s a fact of life, I believe in no payout. If there IS to be a payout (which I don’t agree with), I believe it should be a one shot deal, and not a drag for decades furthering the expansion of socialism. If the options are stop the stupidity (end SS), pacify the entitled and then fix the mess (pay out in a lump sum), or destroy the American Republic through socialism (Keep social security), the choice is clear, simply end all Social Security NOW.
I don’t need to find a funding solution for the lesser of two evils (lump sum, versus destruction of the entire nation and currency), unless there is no chance of a real option. There still is, and I’ll cross that bridge when we if (we will) we get to it, at that time. But since it’s been previously stated, try reading up thread.
You seem a little heated. I think we mostly agree.
The odd part of this debate is that SS wasn’t there for most people after WWII. Not because they weren’t vested or any legal rule but because most people who paid SS would die before they received a benefit. It always has been somewhat of a Ponzi scheme.
It always has been pay as we go. There has never been a store house of retirement homes or gold for people retiring on SS to collect from. It’s always come from taxes.
What I think we should do is simply raise the retirement age by three months in any year SS runs a deficit. Taxes for SS are too high as it is and I certainly don’t want us to pay any more. Add Medicare in that calculation too. Clear, simple and flexible.
I don’t want to see people starve if they are too irresponsible to save for themselves. They certainly shouldn’t “live well” but neither should they starve. Just because it is “not my fault” they screwed up doesn’t mean I think they should die.
I don’t agree with monetizing it. I doubt our debt can be monetized because so much of it is short term debt. monitization is a heavy sword and difficult to control. We’ll default before we realize that we are certain we will default. Defaulting is not an option because ALL paper assets would become worthless.
I think we agree to an extent, but I will NEVER be satisfied with the socialism, it is evil to the core. You said:
“I don’t want to see people starve if they are too irresponsible to save for themselves. They certainly shouldn’t “live well” but neither should they starve. Just because it is “not my fault” they screwed up doesn’t mean I think they should die.”
Then you (and I and anyone else), are free to give to them from your own savings, but NEVER are free to give to them from the public coffers. Surely if you look at your post, you realize that there can never be personal responsibility when you know you will always be taken care of. These evils ALWAYS start out so innocent, which is why I stated, that as long as there are payments, they WILL be the camel’s nose in the tent.
Also raising the goalposts for retirement age does nothing except state that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others (in this case, those born first), that is generational rape, and not at all “Equal justice under law.” Just end it all, or we WILL default, through hypperinflation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.