Yep.
Posted on 02/08/2018 9:19:04 PM PST by sparklite2
Considering nobody in their 20’s or 30’s is going to receive any SS when they turn 65 it is a good idea.
SS is broke and getting broker
If men had to have babies, either they’d find a better way to do it in ten years, or the human race would die out in one generation.
Is old Never Trumper Erik still breathing?
Exactly
But then Ivanka never has to face depending on a social security check to pay the utility bill and buy food and cover medicare premiums
She is a clueless tone deaf liability who needs to go back to NYC and sell shoes made in China
I was against it then, and I’m against it now. No, to Ivanka’s socialist agenda. Send her back to New York.
“It is crap and will cause even more hesitation in hiring women in particular.
With all this fear of sexual harassment problems in the work place, this is probably already happening.”
The hardest hit by the Americans with Disabilities Act were the disabled. Studies showed the probability of them getting hired dropped dramatically as businesses acted defensively to limit their liability under the act. If I was a man alone in an office, say a dentist, I’d hesitate to hire a woman assistant.
After the company I worked for was taken to an EOE administrative court by a black clearly hoping for a big payout for discrimination, they became more careful in hiring blacks. (The company prevailed and the black woman judge, who had never found for a company, read the man the riot act.)
For every “action” there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Yep.
Naive for sure. I’ve known people who’ve had rigorous academic training — professionals such as doctors, lawyers and engineers — that have very little ‘common sense’. It’s shocking the first time you see it. After a while you realize that maybe there’s a ‘silver spoon’ pattern. Getting into the best schools on minority preferences or legacies, etc. Succeeding without adversity.
This would absolutely kill social security. Certainly it would rip the mask off the whole program since it would no-longer be a inter-generational ‘money pump’ between the working generation and the pool of retirees.
Killing SS is, I think, a good thing. SS is the 2nd reason that the demondogs need huge numbers of immigrants. They need them to keep the Ponzi scheme going a few more years.
Abandon SS go to a Chilean model.
I’m thinking that too. Maybe the Ivanka-plan would be the straw that finally lays Social Security to rest.
What we should be doing is encouraging a private savings plan for all people entering the work force. The Ivanka-Rubio plan would do the opposite. Instead of forcing new workers to confront their long-range retirement needs, it strengthens the constituency among new workers while vastly increasing the financial burdens on the system.
Why did you change the title of the article?
That’s a pipe dream, it is political suicide to try and get rid of social security. Consider this, for 23% or married retirees and 43% of single retirees SS makes up 90% of there retirement income, and those people vote. Not only do those people vote, but when you tell their adult children that mom and pop are going to have to move in with them when social security is killed they will vote to.
As far as taking some of a persons social security tax and investing it, you then have to borrow more money to cover the loss of that revenue into social security.
So what do we do? Well here is my plan to fix social security.
Social Security is our biggest budget item, and the social security trust fund is the largest part of our debt (16%). Here is how I would change the social security law.
1.I would create a minimum insurance amount of $1500 and a maximum insured amount of double the minimum.
2. I would make all income subject to the social security tax. (Right now only the first $114000 is taxed.
3. The social security trust fund would be eliminated off the books. (It’s an accounting gimmick anyways, the bonds can only be redeemed to the government.)
Like any good compromise there is something for both sides to love and hate. The Democrats get to brag about the new minimum insured amount and that they raised taxes on the “rich”. Conservatives can brag about helping to make the budget more balanced and reducing the national debt by 16% or 3.2 Trillion dollars. No one comes away completely happy and no one comes away without something. But I now believe conservatives don’t really want to balance the budget or reduce the debt anymore than liberals want to.
Trying to treat government funds with net present value and other GAAP processes might work - except the government doesn’t follow standard GAAP processes. If they did nearly every current government would be insolvent.
I think you need to watch her speak a few more times. She is highly intelligent. You’re judgment is clouded by her beauty.
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.