Raising Social Security Benefits

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by wgabrie, Sep 19, 2022.

  1. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    5,915
    Likes Received:
    5,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Huh? How does that apply.
     
  2. DEFinning

    DEFinning Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2020
    Messages:
    8,765
    Likes Received:
    3,765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It WON'T happen, if Republicans get full control of government, again: that's part of their published Plan for America (spoiler alert: Medicare will be gone, as well).
     
  3. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,562
    Likes Received:
    15,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are not Government Bonds part of the National Debt?
     
  4. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,562
    Likes Received:
    15,870
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which makes them an existential threat to me.
     
  5. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    44,481
    Likes Received:
    18,039
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't get it either. I think he's on the "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" part of the argument.
     
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps it's the way you described it? Sounded more like superannuation or similar.

    Ours is just general welfare. It comes out of the national kitty, regardless of whether you've paid into it or not. You could have been unemployed your entire life, and you'll still receive an age pension. It's means tested only.
     
  7. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,852
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Social Security has several programs. There is regular Social Security benefits that we get when we retire and is based on work history. There is Social Security Disability that we get if we become disabled before retirement age and it is also based on work history. Then there is SSI which is income for poor retired or disabled who don't have a minimum amount of benefits and who don't have enough assets to support themselves.

    There's Medicare too, but that's something else.
     
  8. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have only the age pension, when it comes to Govt benefits past retirement age. It's not contingent upon anything but age and means. You could have worked hard all your life and you won't get a cent more than a deadbeat who's never worked.
     
  9. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,852
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like it! Old people basic income. It's like the income movement in the States, but for old people.

    Tell me, how do you afford it, and how generous is the benefit considered?

    We may have to consider that as an alternative if SS doesn't survive because the Republicans were right and it really is a ponzi scheme.
     
  10. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do we afford any welfare? Tax dollars.

    It's a reasonable amount. Around $2000k a month. Enough to live on for the majority - who should own a home outright by retirement age, given how much more affordable housing was when they were working age. The amount paid is actually predicated upon home ownership, which is the only fair way to do it.

    Obviously it's not sustainable though, since there are an increasing number of retirees without property. That's going to become VERY costly, if the Govt intends to fund these individuals. The only way to make it work is to throw out the means test, and introduce the 'mortgage' test. By that I mean applicants would need to meet similar criteria as those for mortgages. That would be things like residential stability and a history of financial responsibility. I would add in a psycho-social evaluation to check for a history of things like addiction and criminal activity - things which should exclude the applicant on the grounds that it doesn't meet the criteria for financial responsibility.

    The majority of the 'wrong' people would simply decline to pursue benefits, given those conditions. That's exactly the outcome we should all want, so that the resources are going to the right people. Those in NEED, not in 'want'.
     
  11. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,852
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, if we're going to make homes unaffordable to an entire generation of people, then we'll have to pay the price eventually.

    Some call this end stage capitalism.

    But with no other options available, I wish some smart person would think up a new economic system to try.
    :)
     
  12. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    29,863
    Likes Received:
    2,432
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Raising Social Security Payments by a significant amount of money is the type of idea that off the scale ignorant and stupid members of the G. O. P. in the U.S.A. and Conservatives here in Canada, will tend to speak and write against.......
    but it is a no- brainer under these present set of circumstances.............

    I am sixty three and if I earned enough to fully retire I would probably end up doing even more volunteerism than I already do.........

    ... One of the reasons why many elected officials DO NOT WANT TO SEE older people receiving more money is because the U.S.A. and Canadian dollars are backed up by the productivity of Canadians and Americans.........

    .... and I have noticed that younger workers don't seem to want to do much of anything else other than look at their iPhones???????????

    If we older people actually fully retired...... the real value of the USA and Canadian dollars could considerably drop??????
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2022
  13. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On the contrary, it was capitalism which made it possible for working and middle class people to own property. Any alternative system will remove that option altogether, and all you'll have done then is precipitate that which you're attempting to avoid.

    While property in some places is no longer affordable for working and middle class people, there are still far more locations where it IS affordable. And that's true of most of the world. You can pay millions for a house in London, but drive a couple of hours north and you can find the same house for $200k. A house in Rome is very expensive .. but you can buy a house in an Italian village for $20k. In Asia it's the same.

    There's a very long way to go before we're anywhere near pricing the working and middle classes out of property. The problem today isn't that housing isn't affordable (because it very clearly still is), it's that some people have developed such a huge sense of entitlement that they expect to live in places they can't afford. Worse still, they expect to have private, individual residences in those locations. As in one person, couple, or family per dwelling. That's a huge luxury, by world standards. So yeah, it's a people problem - not a housing affordability problem. They're basically refusing to adjust to the inevitable changes, and suffering the consequences.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
  14. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,852
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That was true originally, back when it was a country out for its own people. Now it's become all about welfare for the corporations and throwing the people under a bus.
    The rich still need the working and middle class there in the same areas to serve their needs. The services that they provide give the rich the support they need to enjoy their time there. It's the population in the shape of a pyramid.
    Perhaps you're right. Maybe most people can still find a place that they can afford. Which is good because the rich don't want worker housing in their backyard, even though they require their services to be nearby. And have put laws into effect to prevent multi-family housing.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2022
  15. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) It's Welfare which has created the sense of entitlement. It's lead people to believe they're owed a private home in the location of their choice. Welfare has entrenched the idea that you needn't live within your means, because Govt will save you.

    2) That's the rich's problem. Who cares if they can't find a cleaner? Why do you care? And before you say 'some people need cleaning jobs', yes that's true. However they can commute like everyone else who can't afford to live in the city. As someone who lives in a place where commuting into a city is normal, when Americans talk about it it as though it's some horrific impost, it comes across very 'spoiled brat'.

    3) Again, who cares whether the rich want it. That's their territory, and they have every right to care about it as they will. Worry about your own territory. Also, no law can prevent multi-generational families from residing together in their own home. Literally ... no law anywhere in the Western World. There may be an upper number limit, but that would have no bearing on who the individuals were or how they are related. Then again if you're talking about buildings divided up for the use of several families, that's a completely different issue. It's also completely unnecessary. All you need is a family sized house with at least two bathrooms, and just add a kitchenette for 'entertainment' (but really for grandma or whoever). As long as the floor plan allows each group a bathroom, a kitchen, and some separation in terms of living areas and bedrooms - like one upstairs, one downstairs for example, you're golden. You could easily put three families in many American houses - they're ridiculously huge!
     
  16. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    12,852
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm talking about corporate welfare.
     
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,014
    Likes Received:
    18,060
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not what has caused the problem.

    It's the re-shaping of societal expectations which has done the damage.
     
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,531
    Likes Received:
    35,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why don't we make it $1000 then?
     
  19. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,531
    Likes Received:
    35,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    An about a third get their FICA refunded through the EITC
     
  20. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    133,545
    Likes Received:
    52,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ok

    this is how republicans always try to fight cost of living increases, 'well if we do that, then why not more than that' ..... if the need is there, then give more

    the min wage used to rise more than it has too, part of the problem, not keeping up with the cost of living increases

    https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2022
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,531
    Likes Received:
    35,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The $200 isn't a COLA it is just a blanket increase across the board. So why not make it $1000 and think how much better would be the lives of seniors. You seem to be for the $200 why stop there?
     
  22. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    133,545
    Likes Received:
    52,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    republican can suggest $1000 if they want
     
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,531
    Likes Received:
    35,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You would not support it, you would want it fought against? Why would you deny such a better life to seniors?
     
  24. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    5,915
    Likes Received:
    5,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course.
    Refunded or outright given.
     
  25. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,531
    Likes Received:
    35,179
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's a refundable tax credit, if they don't owe any taxes, which 99.99% don't, they get cash.
     

Share This Page