The Debate To Raise The Retirement Age (move, inheritance, states)

[Red Wolf]

Originally Posted by golfingduo

Exactly and that is the problem in a nutshell.

bingo !

[TuborgP]

Is it possible the push to privatize Social Security is picking up momentum?

[lurtsman]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

If they're really poor they've likely been receiving welfare benefits which means we "rich" folks have been subsidizing them all along, including their non-taxes, tax breaks, EICs, Medicaid, WIC, free lunches, et al.

For the record, I do not consider Social Security or Medicare to be "entitlements." We paid for them.

They are entitlements. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Is it possible the push to privatize Social Security is picking up momentum?

Privatizing is truly the worst thing we could do. The Social Security trust fund becomes insolvent much faster if we do that.

Really I would like to see a compromise involving raising the retirement age gradually, changing the formula to lower inflation adjustments, and increasing the cap on the SS payroll tax.

[oldsoldier1976]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Is it possible the push to privatize Social Security is picking up momentum?

Oh I hope so. Although I don't think SS is in as bad a position as Medicare/Medicaid is. At one point in my life about 20 years ago I would have signed away any claim to SS benefits if they would stop taking it out of my checks. All of that money would have been pumped right into my 401k to max and the extra would have gone after tax to IRA and Roth when that came in. Oh well, I didnt get my wish then.

[Red Wolf]

When President Bush started his push to privatize, there was support.

The more he explained the details and tried to sell it, the more the support dropped.

Here is the stickler -----------$3 TRILLION to make the changeover.

[bUU]

In a contest of who is subsidizing whom, we "rich" folks aren't going to prevail. We "rich" folks are continually subsidized by our ability to exploit the work of those who feed the engines of our affluence. Market-based capitalism has its advantages, but will always suffer from that one malady, and society, if it is to be reputable, must continually remedy that malady, or the whole system will collapse.

With regard to spending, we, as a society, have to stop making excuses for our failure to find ways to accomplish what government is accomplishing, while spending less money doing it. Those who blind themselves to decency in their fervor for advocating spending cuts that they hope will result in a boost to their own affluence need to grow up and find solutions instead of building elaborate excuses for what is little more than thinly-veiled selfishness - grow up, and start taking a responsible role in society by defining, promoting, and supporting changes that provide everything government provides today, and more, at less cost, and stop with the excuses and rationalizations about how difficult the job is.

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by lurtsman

They are entitlements. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Although you were responding not to me, but to another poster, I believe you are ignoring the fact that the word "entitlement" can be used in two different ways. Literally the meaning is clear; something to which we are entitled is something which we deserve, to which we have a right. But have a right in what sense? There are two very different possible contexts, which result in confusion as to intent behind the use of the word.

1. One meaning is entitlement by law. The example I choose for illustration is food stamps. If I meet the income requirements, I am entitled by law to receive food stamps. I just show up, fill out or submit documentation, hold out my hand, and say "here I am". My own contribution to what I am about to receive is zero. (Note that I am not arguing for or against food stamps but merely describing the program).

2. The other meaning is entitlement by contract. I choose two examples, in which my entitlement comes via my own contribution. First, employment: If I have performed my duties, then I am entitled to receive a paycheck from my employer at the designated interval. Second, insurance: If I have paid the premium for car insurance and have an accident, I am entitled to financial remuneration as per the terms of the contract. In both of these cases I have contributed (either my labor or my premium dollars) in order to create my entitlement to the benefits.

Now let's discuss Social Security. The poster to whom you were responding was legitimately objecting to being classed as a welfare recipient (meaning #1 above) because he had paid the premiums (FICA taxes on his wages) over the years in order to receive the retirement benefits. Yes, Social Security is insurance. You rather arrogantly posit some "facts" which you claim by inference he is making up. Please tell me what facts those are.

In the case of Medicare we have a composite situation, because there are elements of both meanings as I have laid them out. We do pay Medicare taxes on our wages, but most of us who are on Medicare receive welfare from the federal general fund in the form of the 75% of the Part B benefits not covered by the Part B premium which we pay (the premium being designed to cover only 25% of the costs).

The unfortunate confusion of meanings of "entitlement" is exploited by politicians for their own simplistic purposes.

[luvmyhoss]

Originally Posted by Midpack

It's been a pay as you go system all along, are you claiming you didn't know that? You paid the benefits for the generation(s) ahead of you. Your contributions are long gone, if that comes as a surprise, you're not paying attention.

I can understand how you'd hope future generations would pay for you in return, but longevity has changed the demographics (workers vs retirees) substantially. At the rate we're going, your kids and grandkids will get let than they "paid in" when they reach FRA. Are you still entitled knowing they are going to have to pay for you while they won't get what you think you're "entitled" to? And Soc Sec will become insolvent in a few decades, should your kids and grandkids pay even more to support you now.

IMO it's burying your head in the sand, even selfish, to just say "we paid for them" without acknowledging the generational imbalance that's right ahead of us. I am not saying current and near retirees should bear the brunt of it, neither should future generations, something in between seems more fair to all concerned.

And saying let the rich pay for it or get less may help, but you can't tax the rich enough to solve the problem, there aren't enough of them.

All the numbers are out there on the internet, readily available for all of us to see.

I am aware that i am funding previous and present ones. I just don't think it should be called
a blasphemous entitlement with all those negative connotations, even though it is.
As for the rich paying for everything, isn't going to happen.

[old_cold]

One thing about raising the retirement age and the low income worker as opposed to the well-off is that if one has accumulated enough, when 'he' retires may still be more a matter of choicehe ones with regardless of the mandated age while those depending on SS for their main income will simply attempt to remain in the workforce.
Throw in the problem of finding (or keeping) employment at advanced age and this contingent may face serious problems in the interim years until SS.
Ergo...if they have to work longer, then yes, they may be having to pay more/longer than those that don't.
This is not inviting comments about "Well, they should have........." but just an observation about those that 'didn't' and how they would be affected by a delay.