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.
We're going to stop spending money on useless, unnecessary wars.
we're going to have a flat tax rate of 10%
we're going to make our government leaders accountable for where our tax dollars go.
Additonally, Mircea, you debunked both the lifespan argument and the idea of raising the FRA pretty well, here:
He didn't debunk it at all.
I'm getting my numbers from the Social Security Administration. In 1940, the average man who had attained age 65, on the average lived another 12.7 years. The average woman in 1940, having attained attained the age of 65, lived another 14.7 years.
In 2013, the average man who attained the age of 65 lived another 18.3 years. The average women who attained the age of 65, lived an additional 20.6 years.
The difference between 1940 and 2013 is 5.6 years for me and 5.9 years for women.
That's additional 66 months of social security payments for men and additional 71 months of payments for women.
All that has to come from somewhere. Its certainly not the only problem. However, when you add in a lower birthrate, smaller families, declining labor force participation rates due to an aging of the population and those wanting early retirements, and a major recession its enough to challenge the assumptions social security is based on.
The way I read that is every group is getting more than they paid in..what am I missing?
Each succeeding group is closer to getting out what they paid in, but every group is still getting more.
If you play that out indefinitely, then yes, at some point people will be getting less back than they contributed, but I have no clue at what point that would be, but I suspect that it would be at least 2060 or more...
Since this thread was originally about Soc Sec, I was referring to the Soc Sec taxes and benefits alone, but I probably should have made that clearer. It's only when you lump in Medicare that it still appears that everyone is "getting more than they paid in" since Medicare is already running huge deficits. I doubt Soc Sec will remain as is, and it would appear something even more radical will have to be done to get Medicare/Medicaid anywhere near back to solvency. The tables were assuming nothing changes...
IMO, everyone who reaches the age of 65 should have a government handout of $20,000 a year and free medical care (altho' there must be some restrictions -- for instance, my mother should not have been getting a bypass operation at the age of 90). Simply because they are Americans. Simply because they are human. We're going to dump Obamacare and make sure that everyone has at least basic medical care from birth.
And how are we going to afford this? We're going to stop spending money on useless, unnecessary wars. Secondly, we're going to have a flat tax rate of 10% -- for everyone, including businesses and corporations. (In fact, Big Business and Big Pharma should have to pay 15%.) And thirdly, we're going to make our government leaders accountable for where our tax dollars go. I don't want my money going to fight a war in Iran, and I don't want my money going to a study of the sex life of beans.
We are just sitting around, doing nothing -- well, some arguing -- does it remind of anything -- like our Congress?? -- and letting our government take our tax dollars to spend ANY way it so chooses (because, after all, Big Brother knows we're too stupid to know what is good for us) AND taking away our rights and freedoms and privacy.
SS reforms are THE LEAST of our problems at the present moment. But still a big problem. A big problem among many big problems!
Well, you're nothing if not idealistic!
I think you're overestimating what the people can do about any of this (even if we were collectively engaged, smart and well informed), and underestimating the role of campaign finance/special interests, but I could be wrong...
I'm getting my numbers from the Social Security Administration. In 1940, the average man who had attained age 65, on the average lived another 12.7 years. The average woman in 1940, having attained attained the age of 65, lived another 14.7 years.
In 2013, the average man who attained the age of 65 lived another 18.3 years. The average women who attained the age of 65, lived an additional 20.6 years.
The difference between 1940 and 2013 is 5.6 years for me and 5.9 years for women.
That's additional 66 months of social security payments for men and additional 71 months of payments for women.
All that has to come from somewhere. Its certainly not the only problem. However, when you add in a lower birthrate, smaller families, declining labor force participation rates due to an aging of the population and those wanting early retirements, and a major recession its enough to challenge the assumptions social security is based on.
I agree with you. Those are virtually the same numbers I went by in the post that was "debunked." Unlike your's, I up to 1990 (the last year the SSA listed.) The longer lives and declining population (let's leave out labor force as some COULD be those close to retirement ages for argument sake) we have less people paying into a large portion of the population for 5/6 more years. Remember, there was more people giving in and less taking out, than there is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
Well, you're nothing if not idealistic!
I think you're overestimating what the people can do about any of this (even if we were collectively engaged, smart and well informed), and underestimating the role of campaign finance/special interests, but I could be wrong...
I think the issue with congress is seen in the gun issues. People like Pierce Morgan love to crap on the pro-gun politicians or those democrats in notorious states that are pro guns. The issue is this, people vote politicians who will represent THEIR views now let's remember there are 435 different districts where their interests could be close or far away, just based on the local politics.
As for Fran's logic, that is what I would like to see happen with healthcare BUT it wont happen because of the fact we have enough revenue coming in to offset the loses from expenses.
IMO, everyone who reaches the age of 65 should have a government handout of $20,000 a year and free medical care (altho' there must be some restrictions -- for instance, my mother should not have been getting a bypass operation at the age of 90). Simply because they are Americans. Simply because they are human. We're going to dump Obamacare and make sure that everyone has at least basic medical care from birth.
And how are we going to afford this? We're going to stop spending money on useless, unnecessary wars. Secondly, we're going to have a flat tax rate of 10% -- for everyone, including businesses and corporations. (In fact, Big Business and Big Pharma should have to pay 15%.) And thirdly, we're going to make our government leaders accountable for where our tax dollars go. I don't want my money going to fight a war in Iran, and I don't want my money going to a study of the sex life of beans.
We are just sitting around, doing nothing -- well, some arguing -- does it remind of anything -- like our Congress?? -- and letting our government take our tax dollars to spend ANY way it so chooses (because, after all, Big Brother knows we're too stupid to know what is good for us) AND taking away our rights and freedoms and privacy.
SS reforms are THE LEAST of our problems at the present moment. But still a big problem. A big problem among many big problems!
1. Have you done any math to determine how much it would cost to fund what you are advocating?
2. Have you done any math to compare how much we would save by not spending any money on "useless, unnecessary wars" with how much would be needed to fund the things you are talking about?
3. Have you done any math to calculate whether a 10% flat tax would bring in more revenue than the current system?
4. Have you reflected on the your self-contradiction in advocating a flat tax of 10% then in the next breath saying it would actually be 15% on certain industries, presumably just because you are mad at those industries?
5. Do you get your ideas and information from someone's blog? If so, whose?
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.
