I know it's a newsflash! We all know it cannot remain as it is and changes must be made. My preference is transition to Thrift Savings Plans for all (TSP for All) with a minimal safety net for those that didn't work enough for TSP to sustain them in their old age. Senators Cassidy and Kaine are pushing another version of this plan which I also like, and it could possibly be easier to implement. Basically, it invests in a TSP like account to grow revenue for the SS Trust fund to keep it solvent.
Some details here: Senators Cassidy and Kaine introduce new Social Security plan
No safety nets, if you didn’t save enough, keep working. If you can’t , apply for disability. Yes, that may mean that some may have to do without cigarettes, booze, cell phone, tv’s etc., but better the leeches do without than the folks that earned their own money…
@oneeyedundertaker I don’t think that’s a politically viable solution.
Can’t generalize like that. Stay at home moms aren’t paying in. Some work hard and don’t make a ton of money. Farm laborers, etc. How about the people with mental disabilities that are maybe capable of janitorial work or something. Works hard but doesn’t make a lot. Why no safety net for these people?No safety nets, if you didn’t save enough, keep working. If you can’t , apply for disability. Yes, that may mean that some may have to do without cigarettes, booze, cell phone, tv’s etc., but better the leeches do without than the folks that earned their own money…
This makes more sense to me than a TSP simply from the perspective that the SS trust was robbed by the government so it should be paid back by the government. The 1.5 trillion seed money would be a form of payback.I know it's a newsflash! We all know it cannot remain as it is and changes must be made. My preference is transition to Thrift Savings Plans for all (TSP for All) with a minimal safety net for those that didn't work enough for TSP to sustain them in their old age. Senators Cassidy and Kaine are pushing another version of this plan which I also like, and it could possibly be easier to implement. Basically, it invests in a TSP like account to grow revenue for the SS Trust fund to keep it solvent.
Some details here: Senators Cassidy and Kaine introduce new Social Security plan
For those arguing that the government is just the US taxpayers paying it back, that of course, is true in one sense, but in another sense, if you consider that most of the US government debt actually goes in the pockets of the richest people this is just putting $1.5 trillion less into their pockets.
Can’t generalize like that. Stay at home moms aren’t paying in. Some work hard and don’t make a ton of money. Farm laborers, etc. How about the people with mental disabilities that are maybe capable of janitorial work or something. Works hard but doesn’t make a lot. Why no safety net for these people?No safety nets, if you didn’t save enough, keep working. If you can’t , apply for disability. Yes, that may mean that some may have to do without cigarettes, booze, cell phone, tv’s etc., but better the leeches do without than the folks that earned their own money…
Stay at home moms are staying at home because either their husband makes enough that they don’t have to work or they getting support payments from McMurtries. People with disabilities can get disability pay. You stated safety nets for those that didn’t work enough, but how often is the case not that they didn’t make enough but that they didn’t save enough? I don’t agree with incentivizing, subsidizing, or rewarding people that didn’t work enough or save enough by choice, especially if they’re paying $150 per month for a family cell plan, $13 for a pack of smokes, etc. Safety nets should exist, but not for people that made poor choices. @bradstevens - Yes, I understand that it is not politically viable because we have created a welfare state.
This makes more sense to me than a TSP simply from the perspective that the SS trust was robbed by the government so it should be paid back by the government.
The trust fund wasn't robbed. Funds were used to buy Treasury bills, which have since or will be cashed in.
This makes more sense to me than a TSP simply from the perspective that the SS trust was robbed by the government so it should be paid back by the government.
The trust fund wasn't robbed. Funds were used to buy Treasury bills, which have since or will be cashed in.
T-bills that have no market value because they're a special class of security that aren't the same as the T-bills sold via auction. They are just IOUs.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
This makes more sense to me than a TSP simply from the perspective that the SS trust was robbed by the government so it should be paid back by the government.
The trust fund wasn't robbed. Funds were used to buy Treasury bills, which have since or will be cashed in.
T-bills that have no market value because they're a special class of security that aren't the same as the T-bills sold via auction. They are just IOUs.
Fair enough. The fund still wasn't robbed.
There will be zero SS or Medicare reform until the boomers are gone. It's their sacred cow and even though they were arguably the most blessed generation of all time they believe they are entitled to every last dime.
@bradstevens – Yes, I understand that it is not politically viable because we have created a welfare state.
Yes, as did all other countries in the West. Forget the "morality" of it, for this argument. The nation states of the West developed the welfare state for a reason. It wasn't a mistake. It was developed by all those countries to avoid real socialism and communism (see Bismark and Roosevelt). If you go full-on laissez-faire, you risk a revolt, at worst, and at best a return to conditions that a substantial % of people found pretty unbearable.
A lot of people who call themselves conservatives today agree with you. But I think they identify as conservatives because they fit in with other people who call themselves that, rather than buying into what real conservative thought is (here, I'm identifying Burke as "real" conservative thought).
IMHO, the true conservative position is to conserve what we have now and to be very, very wary of deviating drastically from the status quo. In doing so, a conservative humbly admits human error and fallibility--that human reason is limited--and that we can't design from scratch social institutions, policy, and culture that have developed over a long period of time (i.e. traditions). That, in turn, is an admission that we in the present aren't that much smarter than those of the past, and that the decisions made by people in the past deserve a measure of respect and deference. All of those considerations weigh in favor of maintaining the welfare state.
By the way, all of these reasons highlight how much tension there is between conservative considerations and libertarian ones, and why that combination leads to certain contradictions--something I've disagreed about with crazedhoosier and @CoHoosier quite a few times and who would, I imagine, disagree with my historical characterization. But I think it's undeniable that libertarians aren't conservatives at heart, but instead radicals.
That still leaves wide latitude to argue about how big, what type of welfare, and to whom.
That still leaves wide latitude to argue about how big, what type of welfare, and to whom.
There will always be differences over who is deserving and who is just lazy or stupid.
There will be zero SS or Medicare reform until the boomers are gone. It's their sacred cow and even though they were arguably the most blessed generation of all time they believe they are entitled to every last dime.
Boomers aren't the ones preventing the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes being raised. That's the JBDs and the Twentys.
That said, as long as they keep paying up while I'm drawing, I'm good with that. If they don't want to keep the thing going once I'm gone, I won't be around to give a shit one way or the other.