So basically Obama and the Democrats got down on their Knees and suck

armchair_warrior

Republican Richard.

No cuts in defence come on!! tons of fat to be had there.

Also 200k isn't a jet owner or super rich . I hated that stupid Democratic lie that been told over and over again about taxes.

pragmaticguy

Not going to disagree with you much on this. The Republicans aren't going to let many tax loopholes close. Best we can hope for is that the Bush tax cuts expire and aren't renewed. That would actually help quite a bit in cutting the deficit. All is can say is....I hope you're able to collect on the Social Security money they take from you, I'm older than many on here and I don't think there's going to be much for me to collect when I'm ready (if I ever can afford it) to retire.

whynot_31

I think most people under 50 regard social security simply as a tax they wish to get rid of, because it is a pay-as-you-go system. Their SS taxes for the benefits received by today's retired persons, and the system won't be solvent to provide benefits to them when they retire.

Of course, most currently retired people believe they are "owed" this money because they paid for the retirement of people who are now deceased.

This creates a "both groups are right" problem.

cool the kid

Well the people collecting today did pay into it. But IMO it should be phased out for a more accountable + sustainable system. Like I said before, enable people to opt out of it by mandating a minimum contribution... and let those who opt in pay at the max rate. I'd have no prob giving away like 1% of my pay to that, but as it stands now I'm giving away like 6% not knowing if I'll get ANYTHING for it.

whynot_31

I agree, and have noticed more typos than usual in one of my sentances

Here's how my post should have read

whynot_31 said:

Their SS taxes benefit today's retired persons, and the system won't be solvent to provide benefits to them when they retire.

This creates a "both groups are right" problem.

armchair_warrior

all young people should have the option of opting out of ss. its a scam to steal their money.

cool the kid

armchair_warrior said:

all young people should have the option of opting out of ss. its a scam to steal their money.

One could argue the same about a lot of taxes.

boygabriel

armchair_warrior said:

all young people should have the option of opting out of ss. its a scam to steal their money.

We would have a TON of destitute old people eating catfood and living on the street.

What would you do then? Let them suffer?

armchair_warrior

the old shouldn't be robbing the young . but fair is fair, pre-k to 12 grade. so young people should be paying around 14 years of ss and we could call it even . if you add college etc..

lets make it a even 20 years of ss for young folks. after that they should have the option of opting out.

whynot_31

Armchair has a point in that those under 35 are being forced to pay for today's old, yet have no reason to expect that future "young people" will pay for their retirement.

While not having to see elderly homeless people on the streets is a benefit, this is a country that has a long history of reneging on the explicit and implicit promises made by prior generations.

In this case, today's old people were promised that future young people would care for them...

Yes, today's 65 year old probably paid into the system for roughly 40 years, helping to fund the retirements of people now deceased.

However, we make similar promises to other groups of people who invest in our country, yet break them.

For example, soldiers are told that in exchange for their service, they will receive adequate care in the event they become wounded veterans.

Most people agree this country makes it very easy for a young person to "sacrifice for their country", yet very difficult to get adequate care and compensation in the event they are injured.

Why should people under 35 be held liable for a promise that the generation before us made?

Note: this piece is written as a conversation starter, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of whynot_31.

boygabriel

SS is solvent for another 30-35 years

With some much-needed improvements, it will continue to be that way.

whynot_31

Yes, but if I am under 35, I see the system as failing right about the time I retire (about 30-35 years from now).

Why should I have to pay for today's old, when I do not expect the young of the future to pay for me when I am old?

In the future, I see the program as only providing benefits to those who are poor and old. As a result of saving for my retirement, I expect to be above the cut off for any means tested program.

I don't want to pay in.

Obama recently "temporarily" dropped the amount people have to pay into the SS system by 2%, and I suspect that he will never get it reinstated. I expect the system to crash far earlier than 30-35 years from now as a result of this and future reductions.

...I think it is only a matter of time before one is able to reduce the amount they have to contribute to SS by simply showing that they contributed to a conservative IRA.

boygabriel

It's my understanding that so many more people end up on SS than people who actually thought they would need it.

Ask a 25 or 35 year old to think about how much money they really need when they're 70 and be met with blank stares.

The right choice is to reform SS and keep it going. It's value is self-evident.

Whether America (or Republicans) will choose that for themselves remains to be seen.

whynot_31

Yes, I once read that (if given the choice) most people would go without employer provided health insurance if they were to split the savings 50/50.

For example, if it costs employers $7000 a year to provide a single adult health insurance, the majority of people said they would give up the insurance in exchange for $3500 in cash.

Of course, they were willing to accept the $3500 deal because they are healthy, and never expect to be sick.

...they also think that sick people did something to make themselves sick, and the well are thus relieved from responsibility for them.

To what extent we can force our paternalistic wishes on others?

armchair_warrior

if people opt out they can't take from it either!! i think its fair after say a young generation does 20 years of ss for x amount of years.

boygabriel

To what extent we can force our paternalistic wishes on others?

The eternal question, though you phrased it in a bit of a loaded way.

whynot_31

When one thinks about it, it isn't really paternalism we are imposing; it is self-interest by the state.

AW wrote: if people opt out they can't take from it either!!

For better or worse, the world is not as "just" as AW would like it to be.

Rarely to we let people endure the full consequences of their actions.

The state always rescues the irresponsible in some way.

Hence, if we follow through on our promise to provide for them in retirement, forced SS taxes force people to be responsible ("A").

But if SS isn't going to be there, it is merely a case of us having to honor the obligations given to us by the prior generation ("B").

...the US is going to need to do a better job convincing people it is "A"

prodigalson

all young people should have the option of opting out of ss. its a scam to steal their money

OK. So long as we also have the option of opting out of paying taxes that support the military industrial complex, all foreign wars, corporate welfare, and a few other examples of government wastage.

cool the kid

BG it is possible to have it both ways. Just cause one may choose to opt out doesn't mean they don't have to contribute at all. And spare us the melodrama of the only alternative to leaving SS alone being to leave old people 'eating cardboard on the street'. Like I said I want no parts of SS. But I will gladly give a fraction of what I'm paying in now so that someone who legitimately can't save for retirement won't go hungry or w/e in old age. But the fact that SS tax has grown from 1% to 7% since its inception does not bode well for its long term solvency. We have to make some fixes or get rid of it. As is its not working.

whynot_31

The problem comes in allowing people to opt out.

Both health insurance and social security are built on the premise of "capturing" those who will least need care (funds) in order to subsidize those who will.

If we were to allow folks a way to opt out of SS, how would we prevent the relatively wealthy from using this escape?

For example, I am someone who is saving for my retirement. If given the chance, I imagine that I would drop out of SS and then clear my conscience by donating a lesser amount to a program that was means tested, such as a home for poor, old people run by a charity.

...presto, no old people eating cat food?

boygabriel

And spare us the melodrama of the only alternative to leaving SS alone being to leave old people 'eating cardboard on the street

Like I said and you repeated, SS is a program that needs fixing.

But I have yet to see a reasonable alternative, and if there isn't one, we will most certainly have multitudes of retired folks who are living in poverty or worse.

So, fix what needs to be fixed. But private savings accts or all the other BS that's been presented over the years is indeed nothing more than BS

armchair_warrior

Boygabriel said:

And spare us the melodrama of the only alternative to leaving SS alone being to leave old people 'eating cardboard on the street

Like I said and you repeated, SS is a program that needs fixing.

But I have yet to see a reasonable alternative, and if there isn't one, we will most certainly have multitudes of retired folks who are living in poverty or worse.

So, fix what needs to be fixed. But private savings accts or all the other BS that's been presented over the years is indeed nothing more than BS

Like i said young people should have the chance to opt out in 14-20 years of contributing . it is fair.

boygabriel

armchair_warrior said:

Like i said young people should have the chance to opt out in 14-20 years of contributing . it is fair.

I don't think 20 years of contributions will be enough to retire on.

armchair_warrior

its opting out not to retire on. the remaining years they get to keep their money!!

if 20 years of free money to ss isn't beyond generous I don't know what is.

the 20 years is for the current system for old people who already paid in and young people coming in. in the future, young folks should have a chance to opt out without even contributing.

whynot_31

AW-

Your idea might work if we were to lower the benefit rate.

When I last looked at my SS statement, it told me that I would be eligible for about $1k a month once I retired.

For many people, in many areas of the country, $1k might be enough to have a a reasonable standard of living.

However, I don't want my standard of living to fall that far once I retire and I don't believe the system will still be around in its present form, so I am saving money in 401ks, Roths, etc.

While I wish most people acted as I do, I have worked in HR at companies that pay decent salaries and know that most employees do not. What if the US gov announced that it was going to cut the SS benefit rate in half ...to basically $500 a month? Of course, we'd phase the cut in.

Would this cause more people to "take charge of their futures and save for their retirement"? Or, would we just end up with a lot of old people who would try to make due on $500 a month, and (predictably) FAIL.

...can't we create a system that makes people a little more responsible for their own well being, and me a little less responsible for it?

Couldn't we move toward a system where future old people are responsible for saving for a greater portion of their retirement, and the obligation of the young to pay for the old is steadily diminished?

sandcastler

Cool The Kid said:

But the fact that SS tax has grown from 1% to 7% since its inception does not bode well for its long term solvency.

That is just the half of it. When you are self-employed you pay both halves, employer and employee. In tax year 2010, it was 15.3% up to $106,800, and 2.9% on any income over that.

cool the kid

Boygabriel said:

And spare us the melodrama of the only alternative to leaving SS alone being to leave old people 'eating cardboard on the street

Like I said and you repeated, SS is a program that needs fixing.

But I have yet to see a reasonable alternative, and if there isn't one, we will most certainly have multitudes of retired folks who are living in poverty or worse.

So, fix what needs to be fixed. But private savings accts or all the other BS that's been presented over the years is indeed nothing more than BS

Like I said, let people who opt out pay a minimum % in for the people who opt in. Very simple and more than fair.

armchair_warrior

I would also throw in Chinese style , family care too, you are by law responsibility for your elders too lol.

hey they help raise you to a point, you might as well be momentarily be responsible for them to a point.

well in china you are also by law to visit etc.. lol that would be going to far for Americans .

whynot_31

AW-

Surely not every old person in China has an intact family to pay for their care.

What happens to those that are old, lonely and broke?

armchair_warrior

last time i remember was there were cases were the grown children ran away to other provinces. the old folks sue with help of the local governments force them to send some sort of monthly payment back. they forgo the visits parts of the custom(not law yet? or has it been pass). but the money parts were enforced.

this happens to the poorest chinese.

armchair_warrior

The notion that adult children should care for their aged parents is deeply ingrained in Chinese society. Offspring who shirk their responsibilities are met with scorn — and sometimes legal judgments. In Shandong Province, for instance, a court ordered three daughters to each pay their 80-year-old mother between 350 to 500 renminbi, roughly $53 to $75 a month, after the mother claimed that they ignored her and treated her like a burden, The Qingdao Evening News reported this month.

But China’s elderly population is growing rapidly while the number of young adults is shrinking, a huge demographic shift that has been building for decades. While the elderly still make up a relatively small share of China’s population compared with some Western nations, demographers predict that the proportion of elderly will nearly double from 2008 to 2025. By 2050, they say, one in four Chinese will be 65 or older.

At the same time, “younger generations are moving away from their parents and quickly developing different values,” Ms. Wang said. “Filial piety is a myth.”

Whereas once several generations shared the same dwelling, more than half of all Chinese over the age of 60 now live separately from their adult children, according to a November report by China’s National Committee on Aging, an advisory group to the State Council. That percentage shoots up to 70 percent in some major cities, the report said. Half of those over the age of 60 suffer from chronic illness and about 3 in 10 suffer from depression or other mental disorders, the group said.

The Civil Affairs Ministry is not the only government agency rushing to the defense of older people. Last week, the eastern province of Jiangsu passed an ordinance forbidding adult children from forcing their parents to give them money or goods, according to The Yangzi Evening News.

China terms adult children who lean too heavily on their parents “kenlao zu” — literally, people who nibble on their elders. The Chinese Research Center on Aging, a government-financed research center under the Civil Affairs Ministry, estimates that 3 in 10 adult Chinese remain partly or totally financially dependent on their parents.

Like the proposed national amendment, the provincial ordinance encourages adult children to see their parents regularly. What constitutes regular — as opposed to occasional or infrequent — is unclear. So is how such a requirement could be enforced.

Mr. Wu, the Civil Affairs Ministry official, said in his interview with The Legal Evening News that lawsuits accusing children of emotional neglect of their parents “would be different from normal lawsuits.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/world/asia/30beijing.html