Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Superpower Status vs. Education, Health Care, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathu
No military spending.
Exactly! The price of empire is internal corruption and eventual collapse. We didn't beat the Soviet Union (as R.R. was so quick to take credit for), they destroyed themselves by devoting a disproportionate amount of their resources to a quest for military supremacy at the expense of internal needs. Sound familiar? Some thought the demise of the U.S.S.R. represented the vindication of capitalism. Maybe it was just a reminder that all empires eventually fall. Guess who's next?
Exactly! The price of empire is internal corruption and eventual collapse. We didn't beat the Soviet Union (as R.R. was so quick to take credit for), they destroyed themselves by devoting a disproportionate amount of their resources to a quest for military supremacy at the expense of internal needs. Sound familiar? Some thought the demise of the U.S.S.R. represented the vindication of capitalism. Maybe it was just a reminder that all empires eventually fall. Guess who's next?
Switzerland has had a strong economy since th 1400's. No empire for them except financial. They keep to themselves. Its even hard to emigrate there.
The next empire is clearly China. We are to China as Great Britain is to us. 300 years from now it will be Russia's Real(and with their vast natural resources they will) turn.
Most humans cannot see the big picture, nor can the think beyond what will happen next(if they can even do that.) To do well on any stage requires seeing more than a myopic view of just you and somebody else, but also everybody who is standing around watching, and then in Toffler-esque fashion, be able to say if I do this, what will happen next, and then what will happen, and after that what will happen.
Most of the people running things could play chess to save their souls, and if they can, then they are ready to study for the real game, which makes even 3D chess look like child's play: GO. A game invented by the Chinese.
Do we really think we can compete with the Chinese?????
When it was designed people didn't live as long as they do now. In 10 years the startup age will be raised to 66, and the full age will be 70.
Everyone knows this.
Right now if you take your SS at 62 and save it, by 70 your will have a huge nest egg, that if you take the highest ss payment at 70, you will have to live to age 84 to surpass the total amount that you will get from the system. They want you to die before you get anything.
Of course SS age will be raised. When it was designed people didn't live as long as they do now. In 10 years the startup age will be raised to 66, and the full age will be 70. Everyone knows this.
It is ridiculous to predict with certainty what will come out of the political circus (the United States Congress) on such a hot-button, emotionally loaded topic such as Social Security reform. It may well turn out that the the retirement ages will be raised, but it is highly doubtful they will be raised as much as you state because raising them that much would be a very radical step and would generate too much opposition. Let's look at all the different small incremental steps which could possibly be enacted to assure the long-term viability of the system:
1. The retirement age could be raised, say one more year (63/68).
2. The salary cap for the payroll tax could be raised or eliminated without a corresponding increase in the benefit cap.
3. The payroll tax itself could be raised slightly.
4. The requirement for qualifying for Social Security could be raised slightly from the current absurdly low 40 quarters (ten years).
5. The formulas for computing benefits could be modified slightly to decrease benefits a small amount.
I am not arrogant enough to claim to know which of the above, or how many of the above, will actually come to pass, but something will have to be done. If Congress embraces only one of the above changes, then of course that change will have to be larger than if Congress were to embrace many of them at very modest levels.
It is ridiculous to predict with certainty what will come out of the political circus (the United States Congress) on such a hot-button, emotionally loaded topic such as Social Security reform. It may well turn out that the the retirement ages will be raised, but it is highly doubtful they will be raised as much as you state because raising them that much would be a very radical step and would generate too much opposition. Let's look at all the different small incremental steps which could possibly be enacted to assure the long-term viability of the system:
1. The retirement age could be raised, say one more year (63/68).
2. The salary cap for the payroll tax could be raised or eliminated without a corresponding increase in the benefit cap.
3. The payroll tax itself could be raised slightly.
4. The requirement for qualifying for Social Security could be raised slightly from the current absurdly low 40 quarters (ten years).
5. The formulas for computing benefits could be modified slightly to decrease benefits a small amount.
I am not arrogant enough to claim to know which of the above, or how many of the above, will actually come to pass, but something will have to be done. If Congress embraces only one of the above changes, then of course that change will have to be larger than if Congress were to embrace many of them at very modest levels.
You can't have a 5 year differential between "early retirement" and "regular" retirement. Doesn't make sense from an actuarial POV (unless we change the payment amounts from what they are currently). Even with the current 4 year differential - if you take SS at age 62 instead of 66 - your "break even" age is in your late 70's (SS.gov used to have a "break even" computer on its website - but removed it about a year ago). The differential has to be narrower - not wider.
FWIW - I think it will be easier to "tweak" SS and put it on a sound footing than to deal with Medicare. Robyn
You can't have a 5 year differential between "early retirement" and "regular" retirement. Doesn't make sense from an actuarial POV (unless we change the payment amounts from what they are currently). Even with the current 4 year differential - if you take SS at age 62 instead of 66 - your "break even" age is in your late 70's (SS.gov used to have a "break even" computer on its website - but removed it about a year ago). The differential has to be narrower - not wider.
FWIW - I think it will be easier to "tweak" SS and put it on a sound footing than to deal with Medicare. Robyn
First, the current four-year differential is for people our age. For the younger folks coming up, full retirement age will be 67, and they will have a five-year differential. (This has been law for years). It's easy how this works: every time the differential increases (as it already has increased from a three-year differential of 62/65 to the current one of four years), the discounted amount for taking "early" retirement at 62 drops (as a percentage of the full retirement benefit).
Agree 100% about the relative difficulty of "fixing" Social Security versus Medicare.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Superpower Status vs. Education, Health Care, etc.
