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
Unless it has personal ownership that allows wealth transfer to heirs, then it's just another ponzi scheme.
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
Social Security isn't in trouble. They're just going to print money to make up the difference. The purchasing power of the dollar is what's in trouble. Nothing stops this train.
When considering how efficiently, expeditiously, equably, equitably and effectively our Federal Government operates I fully expected the wife and I would be forced all of our working lives to pay into that boondoggle of financial feckery only to somehow have the rug pulled out from under us on the precipice of retirement age. So we operated under that expectation and yes we have other investments and retirement accounts but IMHO this is a matter of principle.
When considering the long term solvency of Social Security during the early 1990's, there was a groundswell of support about incorporating individual accounts similar to 401(k)s...but noooo that couldn't happen. Gubmint knows best. Heaven forbid we have control of our own retirement...it's risky they said...the markets are volatile they said...what about the impact from the transistion on the national debt they asked. So it never made it past the talking stage and here we are.
They could've done something substantive about this 30 years ago but they did what they always do, kick the can down the road while riding the status quo and keeping themselves in positions of power and influence.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
Generalizations like yours, which in truth are very likely a very small minority of the people I'm talking about, are why we can't solve this problem.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.
Those Treasury Bills are nothing more than another name for IOUs which the government will have to borrow even more to cash in. What SS is now is a legal Ponzi Scheme and it's unsustainable.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.
Those Treasury Bills are nothing more than another name for IOUs which the government will have to borrow even more to cash in. What SS is now is a legal Ponzi Scheme and it’s unsustainable.
Again, the trust fund wasn't "robbed."
SS has always been nothing more than a generational transfer of wealth. It needs fixed to remain solvent. The fix is quick and simple and relatively painless, but no one in a position to implement it has the balls to do it.
Those Treasury Bills are nothing more than another name for IOUs which the government will have to borrow even more to cash in. What SS is now is a legal Ponzi Scheme and it’s unsustainable.
Again, the trust fund wasn't "robbed."
SS has always been nothing more than a generational transfer of wealth. It needs fixed to remain solvent. The fix is quick and simple and relatively painless, but no one in a position to implement it has the balls to do it.
Robbed vs Ponzi Scheme. when the demographics no longer work, old people must suffer.
Unless it has personal ownership that allows wealth transfer to heirs, then it’s just another ponzi scheme.
Generalizations like yours, which in truth are very likely a very small minority of the people I'm talking about, are why we can't solve this problem.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.
What an impotent group you & your majority must be then…
What? I have no idea what you’re trying to say or who you’re saying it to.Generalizations like yours, which in truth are very likely a very small minority of the people I'm talking about, are why we can't solve this problem.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.
What an impotent group you & your majority must be then…