The Debate To Raise The Retirement Age (friend, generations, jail)

[oldsoldier1976]

Originally Posted by bUU

It's not twisting anything, there: I'm working hard to find some common ground with you.

Do you make any provisions in your unilateral expectation for whether what you're suggesting is practicable?

Talk about twisting things!

How about this: ... Keeping the threshold lower could leave the finances to fund the government still inadequate to fulfill its obligations, and promulgate the increase in unfairness over the last generation into the future, since only those more affluent would have a true stake in it, the less affluent relegated to being merely disposable resources to be exploited and discarded as needed.

Which should motivate those with the most to lose to actually try to find common ground rather than work so hard to avoid finding common ground.

So I agree if my lower number is too low what do you propose as a number? 75k? for single? married? is this adjusted income or is all income above that subject to taxation? if it is 75k what is your income percentage of confiscation? at what percentage are we taxing incomes over 75k?

then we get to what sort of government do we want and need. I propose we need a defense to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. I also believe we need law enforcement not new laws. I do not mind funding for education but at what level does the federal government have jurisdiction? what about social programs? do we give money to foreign governments to keep them friendly? do we pay for natural desasters at ever corner? I am not saying no to any of them I am just asking where do we draw the line in the sand?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by bUU

So you prefer protecting the immorality evidenced by a doubling of income inequality in society in a generation? No thanks.

How can a moral person let stand the earlier counter-suggestion of $32K as the base, or perhaps even supporting it, being such an exploitative proposal given how much it costs to afford the basics?

And that's fine, after basic obligations are satisfied. It is wrong to craft a callous society that promotes self-serving behavior over decency and compassion.

You're funny! You persist in putting words in others mouths they never thought, much less uttered. As progressive, inclusive, enlightened and caring as you obviously think you are you come across as dogmatic, close-minded, judgemental and argumentative which repels rather than recruits to your cause and is amusing.

Simply put, those who work deserve the fruits of their labors. Those who can't work deserve a safety net sufficient to meet their needs. Those who won't work deserve nothing. To believe otherwise is delusional.

G'day!

[bUU]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I don't dispute there is a group of "poor elderly" who have minimal social security benefits The basic problem though is that if we factor in social security and medicare most elderly people are drawing considerably more out of the system than they ever put into it, even when you consider interest on their money.

However, money is not the only thing those "poor elderly" put into "the system". Remember that the vast majority of the working poor generated, through their efforts, far more value for the entities they worked than they were paid. The rationalizations supporting making Social Security less of a true safety net all hinge on thinking that money is the only thing of worth.

I should be fair, though: Perhaps the same could be said of the output side of things: Perhaps there should be some measure of consideration of having Social Security address basic needs through measures other than cash. I suppose, though, that that's already the case, at least with Medicare, imposing lower costs for health services, on elders' behalf. But that's still significantly cash-based. However, I'm sure innovative people can find ways, if they're so inclined, to address the matters pertaining to serving the basic needs of living in our society, that aren't cash-based. That could be part of a compromise.

Originally Posted by markg91359

What very few attempt to do in this group or elsewhere is explain where the extra money ought to come from.

Clearly the right answer is implicit in what I mentioned above: The vast majority of the working poor generated, through their efforts, far more value for the entities they worked than they were paid. The problem Social Security is trying to solve stems mostly from that disparity. I don't think anyone really wants to eliminate that disparity - its presence is a significant aspect of our society - but it does point out where we must go for remedy when the disparity causes a failure of human decency in society. I think we all agree that people should be able to expect to live out their elder years with dignity. As I said before, I haven't seen anyone posting a moral defense for allowing things to continue toward a return to people dying in the streets, and indeed I haven't seen anyone post a moral defense for the doubling of economic inequality in a generation either, which feeds this problem and makes it much worse. So at a basic level everyone recognizes that the solution must include the intolerance for any law-abiding person being expected to live their elder years without dignity - it's only a matter of how to structure things so that that's precluded.

Originally Posted by markg91359

Rational solutions to these problems do exist that if used carefully would see to it that no one group bears too much of the cost of fixing these programs.

This is an interesting statement. What criteria would be used to determine a specific amount is "too much"?

Originally Posted by markg91359

We can reduce COLA increases to social security and other programs by using a chained CPI formula.

I'm not sure if that would cause more misery than it would relieve. I suspect it would not, but I'm not sure about that one.

Originally Posted by markg91359

We can gradually increase retirement ages for young and even middle aged people, like myself.

We're already doing this. Full retirement age had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959. I suppose we can bump it up to 68, but as much as medical science has improved, there is a limit to how effectively people in certain jobs, especially those built around physical labor, can work past a certain age.

Originally Posted by markg91359

We can require that the elderly pay more than 1/4 of the total cost of their medicare benefits.

Except you cannot get blood from a stone, so this is really only going to effect middle income people, several of whom, I suspect, are posting in this thread, and can explain that they're just barely staying middle income people, given how much things like health care cost, now.

Originally Posted by markg91359

We can ration the medical care that is available under medicare.

I assume you're talking about pulling out support for treatments that don't affect dignity or longevity. I'm not sure how many "luxury" health services are still included in Medicare, but I do agree that they should be eliminated.

Originally Posted by markg91359

We can gradually raise payroll taxes to pay for these benefits as well.

I'm sure that'll go over like a lead balloon with some.

We can also put in place means-based eligibility for benefits.

Originally Posted by golfingduo

So I agree if my lower number is too low what do you propose as a number?

I'm proposing our leaders work out a morally-defensible way of determining that; a way that will not be based on some status quo convenience that would work only to continue the current level of inequity or continue us along the path to greater levels of inequity we've been on; and a way that will not subvert decency to accountancy. I don't have a bunch of conservatives here in my office to work the issue out with, so I cannot suggest what the result of such a consensus building would be. We can rest assured, it would be lower than $75k and higher than $32k.

Originally Posted by golfingduo

for single? married?

Sorry I wasn't clear about this; I was thinking in terms of a typical family. Would it make you feel better if we considered that the threshold for families of three?

Originally Posted by golfingduo

then we get to what sort of government do we want and need.

I propose that we need those things you suggested and that society assures that all people are treated with worth and dignity, in the manner I've been discussion in this thread for now-countless pages. A good amount of your concern seems to be with regard to the scoping of society's purview: Scoping is affected by mobility - where there is mobility (such as the ability to relocate without government controls) that defines the scope.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You're funny! You persist in putting words in others mouths they never thought, much less uttered.

As I mentioned above, I'm really trying hard to find common ground.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

As progressive, inclusive, enlightened and caring as you obviously think you are you come across as dogmatic, close-minded, judgemental and argumentative which repels rather than recruits to your cause and is amusing.

If you think projecting support for inequity and institutionalized selfishness attracts recruits to your cause, then that's amusing.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Simply put, those who work deserve the fruits of their labors.

In this thread we've talked about two things: Social Security, something which you're eligible for only by working 40 quarters; and Income Tax, something which affects you only if you work and earn income.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Those who can't work deserve a safety net sufficient to meet their needs. Those who won't work deserve nothing. To believe otherwise is delusional.

Good thing I didn't suggest otherwise. But nice try attempting to erect a Straw Man.

[TuborgP]

In this thread we've talked about two things: Social Security, something which you're eligible for only by working 40 quarters; and Income Tax, something which affects you only if you work and earn income

.

OR

Being married to someone who is eligible even if you your self have never worked
Being divorced and formerly married to someone who is eligible even if you have never worked
Being disabled even if you have never worked
Child of someone who has enabled you for survivor benefits even if you have never worked

Just trying to bring clarification to the discussion.

[TuborgP]

Suggestion I could live with and support to help reform and stabilize SS.

While I don't want my benefits cut because I contributed to them and feel it is wrong just flat out wrong to use this approach to help others. I would support making our Full SS payment subject to federal income tax because our combined incomes from all sources exceeds a given threshold which it probably would.

[oldsoldier1976]

Where do we start!

You seem to be taking on the whole forum here. Look none of us want to make any undue suffering. However that being said we want a fair system. You numbers are arbitrary. Your premise is flawed and your argument is well thought out for a liberal.

None of us is saying we should not pay our way through life. In fact I think it is the other way around. To a person everyone here has contributed to this government over many years. Those collecting SS now and only survive on that are the ones hurting the most from them although just before my mom passed away and she was only on SS said she had more money than she ever had. She worked all her life at minimum wage labor type work in a very low paying area of the country. In factories that have now been moved overseas. She got to volunteer her time and even money to causes she believed in.

My dad on the other hand not good with money doing the same thing is living check to check and barely making it with two in the household on SS. So am I suggesting that we give him more than that as a safety net? Nope cause it is family. I take care of him. I am not giving him all my income because they wouldn't know how to handle it but when they need help I am there.

So you're suggesting we let our elected officials figure out the best way to do this? We give them no guidence? We let them muddle through the mess they helped create? You notice I said helped not that they created. We the people are the real driving force. We made this mess. We elected people that want to bring home the bacon. That is their job we told them. They do it well. Unfortunately they do it too well.

You help us suggest how we can get our elected officials to listen to the 40% that care.

Originally Posted by bUU

...Too many to leave...

[TuborgP]

I propose that we need those things you suggested and that society assures that all people are treated with worth and dignity, in the manner I've been discussion in this thread for now-countless pages. A good amount of your concern seems to be with regard to the scoping of society's purview: Scoping is affected by mobility - where there is mobility (such as the ability to relocate without government controls) that defines the scope.

And let the first step be that they treat themselves with a sense of worth and dignity as they move forward with their lives.

Speaking of worth the market has made a lot of folks feel more worthy of late. Lets hope Cyprus doesn't derail things and that we make sensible decisions and avoid becoming like them which is what this thread is really about isn't it?

[bUU]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Just trying to bring clarification to the discussion.

Your saying this seems to imply that you don't have any criticisms associated with extending benefits to any of these people - that your concerns are limited to others, and therefore only one the workers as I highlighted earlier.

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Suggestion I could live with and support to help reform and stabilize SS.

While I don't want my benefits cut because I contributed to them and feel it is wrong just flat out wrong to use this approach to help others. I would support making our Full SS payment subject to federal income tax because our combined incomes from all sources exceeds a given threshold which it probably would.

Could you please clarify what you mean by that, specifically drawing the distinction between it and the status quo? I think you're just alluding to removing the base amount provision, but I'd rather you outline what you mean.

Recognizing that I don't really know fully what you're alluding to, my understanding is that such proposals don't actually make much of a dent in the problem, not that their impact is necessarily small in the absolute, but rather due to the comparatively large size of the problem.

Originally Posted by golfingduo

Where do we start! You seem to be taking on the whole forum here.

It may seem that way but it's really just three of you.

Originally Posted by golfingduo

Look none of us want to make any undue suffering. However that being said we want a fair system. You numbers are arbitrary. Your premise is flawed and your argument is well thought out for a liberal.

Fairness is clearly subjective. Your numbers are also arbitrary in that they ignore several human considerations. What premise do you feel is "flawed" - that society has an obligation to ensure its economy is at least as fair as it was fifty years ago? Are you saying that the economic situation wasn't fair fifty years ago, and if so, on what definition of fairness are you basing such a claim?

Originally Posted by golfingduo

So you're suggesting we let our elected officials figure out the best way to do this?

I'm open to alternative suggestions that don't abrogate society's obligations or leave such things up to variable chance and personal discretion of those who may not have motivation to behave honorably and conscientiously within society.

Originally Posted by TuborgP

And let the first step be that they treat themselves with a sense of worth and dignity as they move forward with their lives.

It surely is one step, but there is no reason why these steps shouldn't be simultaneous, mutually-supporting steps.

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Speaking of worth the market has made a lot of folks feel more worthy of late. Lets hope Cyprus doesn't derail things and that we make sensible decisions and avoid becoming like them which is what this thread is really about isn't it?

In a way, but their experience cuts both ways: It demonstrates what happens when a society is so deferential to greed that it allows such corruption to erode the foundation of their financial well-being.

[Huckleberry3911948]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

And let the first step be that they treat themselves with a sense of worth and dignity as they move forward with their lives.

Speaking of worth the market has made a lot of folks feel more worthy of late. Lets hope Cyprus doesn't derail things and that we make sensible decisions and avoid becoming like them which is what this thread is really about isn't it?

"that society assures that all people are treated with worth and dignity,"
??????

why should smelly dirt bags be treated with dignity and respect? why would i put a jerk on a pedastal? when your behavior changes how people treat u will change. they are fine with you-- it is your lousy behavior that they are having a problem with.
stop blaming others for running away from skunks.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by bUU

Your saying this seems to imply that you don't have any criticisms associated with extending benefits to any of these people - that your concerns are limited to others, and therefore only one the workers as I highlighted earlier.


Could you please clarify what you mean by that, specifically drawing the distinction between it and the status quo? I think you're just alluding to removing the base amount provision, but I'd rather you outline what you mean.

Recognizing that I don't really know fully what you're alluding to, my understanding is that such proposals don't actually make much of a dent in the problem, not that their impact is necessarily small in the absolute, but rather due to the comparatively large size of the problem.

Tax my full 100% SS benefit and every journey begins with a small step and I have offered my small first step. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS I am actually offering to give up money. I now feel so morally guilty that I have broken down and yielded.