Talk Elections

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?

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. 

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!

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It should be replaced by means tested subsidies.

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.

()

Bloomberg approves of your moderate heroism.

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.