Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 03:49:04 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Social Security
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Social Security  (Read 1289 times)
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15442


Political Matrix
E: -8.39, S: -3.30

View Profile
« on: March 25, 2012, 12:48:05 pm »
Ignore

To conservatives: If you believe that Social Security is in need of reform, how would you do this? If you support privatization, why? If not, what changes would you make to the public system?

To liberals: With the baby boomers beginning to retire, do you think reforms need to be made to the public system? If so, how would you reform Social Security while protecting seniors?
Logged

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13287
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 25, 2012, 01:19:54 pm »
Ignore

To liberals: With the baby boomers beginning to retire, do you think reforms need to be made to the public system? If so, how would you reform Social Security while protecting seniors?

Yes, reforms do need to be made to shore up the finances of the system, and to tweak benefits (at least for future retirees) a bit to make them more sustainable for future generations.  But most certainly I will never support the establishment of private retirement accounts or any variants thereof with payroll tax revenue which do nothing to shore up Social Security but in fact undermine it -which I assume is exactly the intent of those advocating them.

If you want more specifics, check my sig. 
Logged

Jerseyrules
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2426
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2012, 10:02:13 pm »
Ignore

I maintain that social security was bad from its inception, and must be reformed.  At its inception, the burden of one retiree was carried by 32 workers, as opposed to 3:1 now.  And with the baby boomers retiring...  I say we scrap the whole thing, phasing it out over 20 years.  Like a band-aid, it was useful during the depression, and now that it's dirty, best rip it off quick to avoid stinging.  I can respect the socialist who says "yes I want complete welfare state", but the people who beat around the bush make me want to pull my hair out.  "Well, we cap this, we give them some control ove their accounts and take others, we increase benefits a bit for workers and decrease a bit for the wealthiest Americans," etc.  Just tell us what the f-ck you're talking about!  Don't give me propaganda!  I don't want your TelePrompTer pre-recorded crap!  I want stats!
Logged

Drink Too Much:
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=147022.0

Skyrim now, Skyrim tomorrow, Morrowind Forever!

An Empire of Stars and Stripes:

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=156974.0

Quote
FOOL!  I AM Cathcon!

Endorsements:
Governor: Brown (CA), Corbett (PA), Scott (FL)
House: Emken (CA)
Other: Rob McCoy (CA Assembly)
perdedor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2628
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 12:08:05 am »
Ignore

To liberals: With the baby boomers beginning to retire, do you think reforms need to be made to the public system? If so, how would you reform Social Security while protecting seniors?

The simplest thing to do would be to reform the payroll tax into a uncapped progressive tax
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2012, 10:43:28 pm »
Ignore

To liberals: With the baby boomers beginning to retire, do you think reforms need to be made to the public system? If so, how would you reform Social Security while protecting seniors?

The simplest thing to do would be to reform the payroll tax into a uncapped progressive tax
^^^^^^^
Take away the cap and the problem is solved. Easiest budgetary issue ever.
Logged

I was naturally suited to be a lawyer, almost from birth. It was as if, almost, God had willed it. He meant for me to be here, to punish you, and then punish you some more.
I refuse to die a martyrs death here, because you know why?  Martyrs are still dead.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26604
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2012, 11:32:36 pm »
Ignore

To liberals: With the baby boomers beginning to retire, do you think reforms need to be made to the public system? If so, how would you reform Social Security while protecting seniors?

The simplest thing to do would be to reform the payroll tax into a uncapped progressive tax
^^^^^^^
Take away the cap and the problem is solved. Easiest budgetary issue ever.

Solved only until the government has to start handing out million dollar Social Security checks to retired corporate CEOs (or were you going to keep a cap on payouts instead of continuing to link them to what you paid in [save for the very poor who receive more than what the formula calls for]).  And actually if we did do that, it wouldn't add that much.  There aren't that many people who earn more than the cap in wages.

No the simplest solution is to raise the age of eligibility for Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security is in the middle of raising the age for full benefits to age 67.  That can be sped up and at the same time raise the age for full benefits to age 70 and for partial benefits from 62 to 65.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20885
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2012, 12:33:10 am »
Ignore

I agree with Ernest, raise the age.

I also think you should be able to "opt out", but if only if you put the money into a different retirement plan.  (but I could probably be swayed with a good argument)

I also think the Feds shouldn't be borrowing from the funds to pay for other sh**t, especially if they don't have a plan to put that money back in at a later date.  (but again, I could be swayed here too)
Logged

Quote from:   Martha Gellhorn for The Atlantic 1961
The unique misfortune of the Palestinian refugees is that they are a weapon in what seems to be a permanent war...today, in the Middle East, you get a repeated sinking sensation about the Palestinian refugees: they are only a beginning, not an end. Their function is to hang around and be constantly useful as a goad. The ultimate aim is not such humane small potatoes as repatriating refugees.
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2012, 08:39:28 am »
Ignore

Of course the payout should be the same for every retiree, regardless of what he made in his younger days.
Logged

I was naturally suited to be a lawyer, almost from birth. It was as if, almost, God had willed it. He meant for me to be here, to punish you, and then punish you some more.
I refuse to die a martyrs death here, because you know why?  Martyrs are still dead.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14344
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2012, 01:19:24 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 30, 2012, 03:29:15 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

No, collect more from idlers - those who make over 100,000/year.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35357
United States
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2012, 04:05:10 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

No, collect more from idlers - those who make over 100,000/year.

and stagger the retirement age based on occupation: a uniform age for professors and construction workers both is class hate.
Logged
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14344
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 30, 2012, 05:10:42 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

No, collect more from idlers - those who make over 100,000/year.

and stagger the retirement age based on occupation: a uniform age for professors and construction workers both is class hate.

Right on!

Better yet, just line all white-collar workers up against the wall when they reach age 65.  Shot them, contingent upon forced retirement.  Sort of a Logan's Run solution, and it saves money because we don't have to pay them social security.  It has the added benefit of ensuring that they retire at age 65 instead of that pesky "phased retirement" that so many greedy white-collar workers prefer.  This way someone younger can get their job, so it lowers unemployment.
Logged
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2412
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2012, 05:39:44 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

I'd also be in favor of a lock-box so revenue generated for funding Social Security is reserved exclusively for that purpose. Otherwise, if there comes a point at which the program appears unsustainable, I would support both higher taxation and an increased retirement age.

Incidentally, I agree with both of Memphis' posts as well.
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47647


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2012, 05:43:45 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

No, collect more from idlers - those who make over 100,000/year.

and stagger the retirement age based on occupation: a uniform age for professors and construction workers both is class hate.

Right on!

Better yet, just line all white-collar workers up against the wall when they reach age 65.  Shot them, contingent upon forced retirement.  Sort of a Logan's Run solution, and it saves money because we don't have to pay them social security.  It has the added benefit of ensuring that they retire at age 65 instead of that pesky "phased retirement" that so many greedy white-collar workers prefer.  This way someone younger can get their job, so it lowers unemployment.

While I don't agree with Tweed on this one (I think everyone who isn't rich should receive the retirement at 55), but your outrage doesn't sound reasonable.. surely you have to admit you're absolutely privileged over a construction worker due to your class advantages?  I would certainly admit that, if I had your salary.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35357
United States
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2012, 05:56:21 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

No, collect more from idlers - those who make over 100,000/year.

and stagger the retirement age based on occupation: a uniform age for professors and construction workers both is class hate.

Right on!

Better yet, just line all white-collar workers up against the wall when they reach age 65.  Shot them, contingent upon forced retirement.  Sort of a Logan's Run solution, and it saves money because we don't have to pay them social security.  It has the added benefit of ensuring that they retire at age 65 instead of that pesky "phased retirement" that so many greedy white-collar workers prefer.  This way someone younger can get their job, so it lowers unemployment.

chill the fk out dude.  my suggestion is entirely reasonable, fits perfectly within the already genocidal confines of your liberal capitalism, and so engage it on its own terms.
Logged
and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3420


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2012, 07:57:41 pm »
Ignore

It should be replaced by means tested subsidies.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 08:12:28 pm by thermal treasure »Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
angus
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14344
Political Matrix
E: 1.87, S: -7.65

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2012, 08:03:07 pm »
Ignore

Either we raise the benefits age or we collect more from workers.  Those are the only sure solutions.

I'd also be in favor of a lock-box so revenue generated for funding Social Security is reserved exclusively for that purpose. Otherwise, if there comes a point at which the program appears unsustainable, I would support both higher taxation and an increased retirement age.

Incidentally, I agree with both of Memphis' posts as well.

more or less, that's my take on it as well.

Of course, I'd like to be able to gamble with my portion of it, but the OP was about solutions, and I think my suggestion, yours, and that of memphis are all reasonable solutions.
Logged
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2012, 05:52:56 pm »
Ignore

It should be replaced by means tested subsidies.



Bloomberg approves of your moderate heroism.
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10209
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2012, 12:35:40 pm »
Ignore

Of course the payout should be the same for every retiree, regardless of what he made in his younger days.
That'd be a pretty fundamental transformation of the program. 
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2012, 06:49:07 pm »
Ignore

Of course the payout should be the same for every retiree, regardless of what he made in his younger days.
That'd be a pretty fundamental transformation of the program. 
Not really. It's already rigged in that direction. Somebody who earned $100k/year in his working days doessn't get 4 times the benefit of the $25k/year worker. They may as well just even it out altogether. Ideally, I'd like to exclude those with high assets from receiving altogether, but that's never going to happen.
Logged

I was naturally suited to be a lawyer, almost from birth. It was as if, almost, God had willed it. He meant for me to be here, to punish you, and then punish you some more.
I refuse to die a martyrs death here, because you know why?  Martyrs are still dead.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10209
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2012, 03:59:06 pm »
Ignore

Of course the payout should be the same for every retiree, regardless of what he made in his younger days.
That'd be a pretty fundamental transformation of the program. 
Not really. It's already rigged in that direction. Somebody who earned $100k/year in his working days doessn't get 4 times the benefit of the $25k/year worker. They may as well just even it out altogether. Ideally, I'd like to exclude those with high assets from receiving altogether, but that's never going to happen.
What you are talking about is means-testing and giving up on the illusion that it is an investment rather than a form of welfare. Thus, a pretty fundamental transformation.
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14076


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: -3.83


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2012, 04:57:43 pm »
Ignore

Of course the payout should be the same for every retiree, regardless of what he made in his younger days.
That'd be a pretty fundamental transformation of the program. 
Not really. It's already rigged in that direction. Somebody who earned $100k/year in his working days doessn't get 4 times the benefit of the $25k/year worker. They may as well just even it out altogether. Ideally, I'd like to exclude those with high assets from receiving altogether, but that's never going to happen.
What you are talking about is means-testing and giving up on the illusion that it is an investment rather than a form of welfare. Thus, a pretty fundamental transformation.
It obviously is welfare already. Even you just called viewing it as an investment an illusion. It's just unfortunately currently constructed so that Warren Buffet gets more in welfare than those who actually need it. That should change.
Logged

I was naturally suited to be a lawyer, almost from birth. It was as if, almost, God had willed it. He meant for me to be here, to punish you, and then punish you some more.
I refuse to die a martyrs death here, because you know why?  Martyrs are still dead.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines