U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2008, 02:03 PM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,613,486 times
Reputation: 9235

Advertisements

Well, we all know that the younger generations are paying for the older generations medicare and social security. By the time the younger generation will retire, there will be nothing left for us as the deficits will be too much. How about a compromise? Since the younger generation is footing the bill for the older generation, we should put a 90% inheritance tax on those who use social security/medicare. That way it funds back to the younger generation instead of abusing them. What do you think?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2008, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
1,356 posts, read 5,715,284 times
Reputation: 927
I am very conservative fiscally but this idea is interesting. Essentially you are having people repay for the services they received while they were living.

I'll be interested to see what others think.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2008, 08:37 PM
 
1,640 posts, read 4,383,374 times
Reputation: 1023
I'm sure the boomers will be against it, and rightfully so, since they have been paying into SS for their working lives.

With that said, I think the idea is a good start to finding some sort of compromise. I'm not counting on SS and would love to see it phased out (easier said than done, I'm sure)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 04:00 AM
 
Location: western East Roman Empire
8,089 posts, read 11,898,332 times
Reputation: 8112
The current solution to social security and medicare is to reduce the value of the government's liability through inflation.

Not to defend current Pres. Bush, but at the start of his second term, he did campaign to reform social security and the nation ignored him. Since then, the pace of growth in the money supply and inflation started to accelerate, by now at an almost dizzying pace.

The gap between official inflation and real inflation reflects this devaluation policy.

I too would like to see it phased out: all we really wind up doing, for the most part, is subsidizing bureaucrats.

But there is unlikely to be a consensus to actually implement any kind of tangible reform, not least because it is indeed so hard to explain to most people, so the path of least resistance is to devalue the liability through inflation.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 04:25 AM
 
1,566 posts, read 2,911,924 times
Reputation: 1262
roosevelt ****ed us with the pyrimid scheme know as social security
its a complete joke of a system and a classic ponzi scheme whose bottom will drop out
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 08:28 AM
 
720 posts, read 1,107,236 times
Reputation: 812
Sounds like Amway
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 10:45 AM
 
20,194 posts, read 21,613,486 times
Reputation: 9235
I too would like to see social security phased out but with retiree's demanding continued entitlements, probably never happen. They rather the country go bankrupt then to lose their entitlements. As for the elderly who already paid into the system, they weren't paying for any guarantees, it is insurance and in this case... the insurance failed. Social security wasn't really a retirement plan, it is retirement insurance with no guarantees. The elderly supported it blindly and I think they should rightfully lose most of their death assets to pay back its costs. If I made a bad investment I lose, there was no guarantee. The elderly made a bad investment, they lose. Social security won't be here for me and I am paying into it. I rather cut my losses now then keep paying and have nothing in the end. The elderly won't lose their benefits as their death assets will pay for what they used and social security can be phased out without increasing taxes. The money to cover those that are retiring or will retire will be coming from those that use the system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 10:51 AM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,656,881 times
Reputation: 6777
Phase it out and maybe replace it with a compulsory retirement constribution system. Force people to save 15% of everything they earn and make the account inviolable.

I hate to sound like Hillary, but a casual glance at the Retirement threads on this site alone exemplifies how daft people are about saving money.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Great Rep. of Texas
76 posts, read 247,959 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth View Post
Phase it out and maybe replace it with a compulsory retirement constribution system. Force people to save 15% of everything they earn and make the account inviolable.
Forcing people would be an extreme choice, and probably more ill-received than abolishing SS altogether (we're Americans, we don't like being told what to do by the federal government, ).

Why not phase out the big SS? Well, a few reasons it isn't as pressing as some would think. Firstly, the total bill is due over a decades long period, so it isn't as pressing an issue to congress. Secondly, you aren't making any friends if you start going on about taking away benefits from people (some of whom actually depend on those benefits). Moreover, it would also come off negatively to the AARP, which holds a very large number of consistent voters.

My idea, create legislation that requires companies to pay into retirement based on salary through a bank of preference. Also, regulate what these accounts can invest in *as to keep them based on stable growth*. Basically, everyone gets a special IRA when they enter the work force *full or part time*, and when they're working, money is automatically transferred in from the company. Depending on circumstances, this IRA could be transferred to a bank of choice, and upon taking another job, can be payed into by that company as well. It would have a strict age limit before any of the money could be used, and require a minimum amount be kept as cash. This creates a new specialty for banks, and many more jobs for the peoples. How is this different from forcing people? Well, it's more of a company requirement the way I do it. Doesn't really involve the individual much at all, except for investment choices "which are limited by law". Isn't perfect, but a heck of a lot better than letting the government try and run it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2008, 12:55 PM
 
12,787 posts, read 18,656,881 times
Reputation: 6777
Quote:
Forcing people would be an extreme choice, and probably more ill-received than abolishing SS altogether (we're Americans, we don't like being told what to do by the federal government
I realize that and I do not suggest it lightly. I am fairly libertarian-leaning myself, but there are score of people who literally are not saving a dime and are defiant in their beliefs that they are unable to do so.

I hate to compel what should be common sense, but then again its better than having them becoming a liability of society only because they favored a big screen TV rather than an IRA.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:51 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top