Worry about the new generation?

President2032 · #1 (**permalink**) 09-13-2004, 02:07 AM

We need a Social Security reform now.
This webpage provides many articles for you to consider. They are very smart and futuristic.

I don't want to pay more Social Security.

http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=section&secID=15

bones · #2 (**permalink**) 09-14-2004, 02:15 PM

The only way to subsidize entitlement programs is to
-print more money(inflation)
-tax unborn generations
-tax more of those who dont benefit(the rich), until they get poor, then refer to the above two

entitlement programs are always a sticky thing to get out of, because if you cut it off immediately, there will be a large group of people who do not have the ability to do anything to fix it(those on welfare cant work, old people dont have a retirement account)

i think that the best way to get rid of it is to phase it out, even though i am not for having it at all, it would be almost immoral to do this so suddenly.

SenaxFlatulus · #3 (**permalink**) 09-20-2004, 02:53 AM

... privatization of the Soso security system?

crucial-fiction · #4 (**permalink**) 09-24-2004, 04:29 AM

Eh I mean really, what do we have to worry about (my generation) the world is gonna end WAY before we could even think of using SS benifits...

President2032 · #5 (**permalink**) 09-25-2004, 06:29 AM

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...lls/P73718.asp

nobody · #6 (**permalink**) 10-19-2004, 01:44 AM

There is a reason why Social Security will be dead eventually. There is also a reason why it is called SOCIAL Security. Think about the ramifications of this statement when it comes to other issues we discuss(Health Care, Welfare, Taxes, etc.). Things that make you go hmmm and then what the #$%&. End it. Quite taking our money. Privatize it and give the average citizen a little credit. Make us accountable for our own actions and responsible for our own retirement. Maybe if we held people more accountable, they might take more responsibility for themselves? Hmmmm

SenaxFlatulus · #7 (**permalink**) 10-23-2004, 07:29 PM

When FDR introduced it to America, it was known as Social Security Insurance. It was explained as a concept like we use with any other insurance. (Something you pay for in the eventuality that you hope you don't need it, like car insurance or life insurance) If you do need it, it's there. We would all pay into it with deductions from our paychecks and we would never notice it being gone. (yeah right) Bear with me now...

Back in the day of its inception, the life expectancy of the average American male was about 65 yrs old and females were about 69. So, the plan was for us all to pay into the plan in hopes that we would die before using too much of the money. In other words, men would retire at 61, and use the money for about 4 years before kicking off and that would be the end of it. The unused money in their account would go back into the SS fund for the next generation of beneficiaries. Not a bad plan really.

What they failed to do was to take into account the slow raising of life expectancies of the population. Now it's not unheard of for the average American to live well into his/her 80's. Problem... big problem. Now, we've all come to expect it, to depend on it as some type of retirement benefit, an entitlement.

The plan at the time of its inception seemed to be a sound one in that it took into account some growth. As more people entered the workforce and paid into the fund it would grow as the population grew. It never took into account the rising costs of heathcare nor the increase in life expectancy due to medical advances.

This problem isn't going to go away unless some serious reforms are made soon. I fear that we'll be making some very tough choices in the near future.

MICcheck · #8 (**permalink**) 10-24-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

... privatization of the Soso security system?

Because that would likely create a situation where some people are unable to get it, and I feel that social security, like adequate health care, is an unalienable right which must be given freely to all. Privatization is often a good thing, but not when it's something as vital as social security - we simply can't run the risk of people not getting social security.

Of course, that's my PC stance. In all honesty, I think we should stop wasting money on old people and let them die. That's what's supposed to happen when you get old - you die.

SenaxFlatulus · #9 (**permalink**) 10-25-2004, 04:27 PM

You don't mind letting the government continue to mismanage it? Remember, the government in charge of the Soso security system is what got us here... with it going bankrupt soon. This is the same flawless system that does so well with other projects like Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Both are also losing money for us.

MICcheck · #10 (**permalink**) 10-25-2004, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenaxFlatulus";p=&quot

You don't mind letting the government continue to mismanage it? Remember, the government in charge of the Soso security system is what got us here... with it going bankrupt soon. This is the same flawless system that does so well with other projects like Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Both are also losing money for us.

The postal service issue can be explained by the advent of the internet. Of course there are reforms that need to be made, but I'm not qualified to discuss what those should be, and neither are you (I would assume). What I do know is that a situtation where some people can't get social security is unacceptable, and privitization would likely result in such a situation.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode