Best way to reform Social Security?

[War on Want]

What do you guys think is the best way to reform social security and how to solve the problems we face with it?

[Хahar 🤔]

MORE TAXES

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[opebo]

Correct as usual Xahar.   Eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes, so that all income is thus taxed, plus apply the social security tax to 'capital gains', etc.  Finally, increase benefits for the needier old.

Finally a form of Medicare should be made available at any age.  I don't understand why my father gets free medical care and I don't.

[tik 🪀✨]

Correct as usual Xahar.   Eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes, so that all income is thus taxed, plus apply the social security tax to 'capital gains', etc.  Finally, increase benefits for the needier old.

Finally a form of Medicare should be made available at any age.  I don't understand why my father gets free medical care and I don't.

I don't know of your father, but I'm guessing he's not a parasite and maybe paid into the system for the majority of his life.

[opebo]

Correct as usual Xahar.   Eliminate the income cap on payroll taxes, so that all income is thus taxed, plus apply the social security tax to 'capital gains', etc.  Finally, increase benefits for the needier old.

Finally a form of Medicare should be made available at any age.  I don't understand why my father gets free medical care and I don't.

I don't know of your father, but I'm guessing he's not a parasite and maybe paid into the system for the majority of his life.

Rather meaningless detail.

[TheresNoMoney]

1) Eliminate the cap
2) Slightly lessen the tax rate (maybe by 1% or so)
3) Set aside all Social Security funds so they can't be raided by other government programs/spending

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Social Security is currently in the middle of gradually raising the age at which full benefits can be received to age 67.  The first step should be to continue that to age 70 and raise the age at which partial benefits can be obtained from 62 to 65 at the same time.  We live longer on average than when Social Security was started.  Bringing the number of years for which an average person receives benefits down to something closer to what was originally envisaged is the first step that should be taken.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Remove the cap on social security taxes, reduce benefits to the highest income earners, and raise the eligibility date to 67.

Yes, social security will have a problem if we do nothing.  But unlike Europe, we have generations younger than the baby boomers that are bigger than the baby boomer generation.

If we can't support the minimal social security we have on a relatively stable population (no huge booms or busts like Europe), then we've done something terribly wrong.  Luckily, that's not the case, as much as the politicians would have you believe.

We don't have the problem:



Japan has the problem:



Germany has the problem:

[John Dibble]

Temporary solutions would include raising the income cap and claim age, but frankly I think it needs to just be reengineered so than individuals are saving for themselves rather than having one generation paying for the previous generation if we want to save it in the long term.

[Daniel Adams]

There is no good reason why government should be involved in people's retirement at all, much less the federal government. As long as Social Security is under the federal government's control, problems will continue and proposed solutions will be temporary. Let people control and be responsible for their own retirements. Social Security should be gradually privatized.

[dead0man]

There is no good reason why government should be involved in people's retirement at all, much less the federal government. As long as Social Security is under the federal government's control, problems will continue and proposed solutions will be temporary. Let people control and be responsible for their own retirements. Social Security should be gradually privatized.

This.

But Snowguy's point is a very important (and correct) one.  Europe and Japan have the same problem only a lot more severe.  We need a plague that kills only the elderly.  I had high hopes for the bird flu and SARS but that seemed to be more fear mongering than anything else.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Raise the age and cut benefits. Social security was not meant to be an income for retirees, but rather insurance. The Democrats have tried to play it out as the only way retired people could survive. If it was up to me, we should abolish it completely, or at least privatize it so people can take their retirement into their own hands. The federal government has no reason to be in this business anyway.

[opebo]

Raise the age and cut benefits. Social security was not meant to be an income for retirees, but rather insurance. The Democrats have tried to play it out as the only way retired people could survive. If it was up to me, we should abolish it completely, or at least privatize it so people can take their retirement into their own hands. The federal government has no reason to be in this business anyway.

How on earth was it meant to be 'insurance'?  It pays people a monthly income from age 65 until death, and always has.  How is that not a retirement? 

As for people 'taking their retirement into their own hands', this is not an option for the majority, who are kept in a condition of poverty by the owners/government.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Raise the benefit age slowly, starting with people that are around 40 now.  Perhaps a year every two years capping off at around 78 or 80.  That will give people working now plenty of time to privitize their retirement.  Drastically slash benefits starting with people that are around 40 now as well.  That way it will only be a crutch instead of a way of life.

[opebo]

Raise the benefit age slowly, starting with people that are around 40 now.  Perhaps a year every two years capping off at around 78 or 80.  That will give people working now plenty of time to privitize their retirement.  Drastically slash benefits starting with people that are around 40 now as well.  That way it will only be a crutch instead of a way of life.

I wonder if you understand that your plan does involve old people starving to death in the streets?

[Franzl]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

[opebo]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

I think you are right, but I was trying to point out the unrealistic nature of his proposal.  Americans will stand for blacks, hispanics, and assorted unemployed starving to death in the streets, but they won't stand for the huge percentage of olds who would die this way without Social Security.  Not only too unseemly but it is hard to pretend you won't also be old.

[Franzl]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

I think you are right, but I was trying to point out the unrealistic nature of his proposal.  Americans will stand for blacks, hispanics, and assorted unemployed starving to death in the streets, but they won't stand for the huge percentage of olds who would die this way without Social Security.  Not only too unseemly but it is hard to pretend you won't also be old.

You've got a point there, yes.

[opebo]

You've got a point there, yes.

On the other hand as he has demonstrated they will just say 'oh they didn't plan ahead'.

[Franzl]

You've got a point there, yes.

On the other hand as he has demonstrated they will just say 'oh they didn't plan ahead'.

You know I disagree with you pretty frequently, but I think you're absolutely correct that for many people, it is impossible to "plan ahead". I think some people are at fault themselves: I'm sure you'll agree that some people do try to live beyond their actual means, but it's definitely not true for a majority.

DWTL, however, as most libertarians, is quite naive.

[opebo]

...I'm sure you'll agree that some people do try to live beyond their actual means, but it's definitely not true for a majority.

Yes, but it is basically irrelevant to their position in the hierarchy - their power.  If you are working class whether you 'live beyond your means' or not is not going to change what happens to you when you lose your job and can't find another one.   People simply can't save up enough to support themselves at say $2,000-3,000 a month for months or years of unemployment.  Well, unless their period of unemployment falls near the end of their working life and they've saved for 40+ years.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really astoundingly so.  They do not ever admit of the possibility that 1) ill-fortune overwhelms preparation, and 2) that wealth is an advantage; a power.  They're so locked in a narrow world view that takes in maybe 20% of what is going on.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

There no good reason as to why given extensive amounts of time people cannot plan for retirement.  Sure, there are some people that live on minimum wage paycheck to paycheck, but there is no complete abolition.  The number will certainly be enough to live on, and other than that there are plenty of private charities.

[Franzl]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

There no good reason as to why given extensive amounts of time people cannot plan for retirement.  Sure, there are some people that live on minimum wage paycheck to paycheck, but there is no complete abolition.  The number will certainly be enough to live on, and other than that there are plenty of private charities.

Absolute nonsense.

There are many many people that are not able to "plan" for retirement, because they are forced to spend their entire paycheck in order to get by.

And private charities...don't get me started on that.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't think he really cares that much.

Actually, I'm surprised he isn't advocating complete abolition.

There no good reason as to why given extensive amounts of time people cannot plan for retirement.  Sure, there are some people that live on minimum wage paycheck to paycheck, but there is no complete abolition.  The number will certainly be enough to live on, and other than that there are plenty of private charities.

Absolute nonsense.

There are many many people that are not able to "plan" for retirement, because they are forced to spend their entire paycheck in order to get by.

And private charities...don't get me started on that.

I did not call for a complete phase-out, but I think we can all agree that if we keep the current plan going, were screwed. 

[opebo]

...but I think we can all agree that if we keep the current plan going, were screwed. 

No!  Thats just right-wing propaganda.  The current plan is great, we just need to increase taxation of the wealthy, who have been getting away with not paying social security taxes, and increase benefits for the poor.