Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

If you're not in favor of cutting it because it's in danger of running out of funds (which it's not, as we seem to agree) then what's your reasoning? Do you own stock in cat food manufacturers?

We're not necessarily agreeing on the funding thing, but I also don't believe it is ever going to disappear. They will get rid of everything but military before they drop Social Security so I know it's going to be there when I retire unless we are invaded.

The reason why they should change it is because not everyone needs it earlier, changing it will spur people to change their own saving habits (A huge problem in the US), & it's a pre-emptive strike for the times that changes may be needed that aren't foreseeable. No one can predict the future. Raising the Social Security age to 69 by 2075 does nothing for those currently invested in it or even those starting in a few years. Even if funding is fine now, why adopt a policy of it being perfect as is which it isn't?

Keeing it in place still gives our children (or their children) the opportunity to either save and retire prior to 69 or keep working until the benefit kicks in. Getting rid of it altogether and replacing it with a required savings plan would accomplish the same thing (Our state forces it now) although it's more unlikely and also makes people feel the pain now than the futrue when they're old and realize SS ain't all that.

 

[JzeroT1437]

Well, I look forward to working for the next 43 years of my life before SS finally kicks in to cover my ass.

Start marking those days off the calendar now.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I've been looking for this graph. Here's why it's nonsense to tackle Social Security so hard, and barely touch Medicare/Medicaid.

* Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

* Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

* Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.​

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

The commission is chopping at stuff that isn't the problem.

 

[badcrumble]

In any event, while these "non-discretionary" programs do need to outright end - as they are the fiscal noose around our nation's neck - it is worth noting that the age elements within them were chosen based on life expectancy... at the very least, should we continue those programs, those numbers should continue to be tied to life expectancy. Otherwise, the liability of such programs will continue to balloon.

Would this mean, for example, that black people should be able to start collecting Social Security a few years before white people can, since they've got a shorter life expectancy?

 

[JGS]

Well, I look forward to working for the next 43 years of my life before SS finally kicks in to cover my ass.

Start marking those days off the calendar now.

I'm not working til then. If my retirement fails me, I'll be a homeless bum before I work a day past 62. 45 years in the workforce is plenty unless I actually find a job I love to death, then I'll work until I die.

 

[Zaptruder]

And that's what charity is for.

Ah... the charity of letting them cost you a bunch as they clog up emergency rooms.

 

[mckmas8808]

And that's what charity is for.

Charity will dole out Billions of dollars a year to millions of Americans? :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

I've been looking for this graph. Here's why it's nonsense to tackle Social Security so hard, and barely touch Medicare/Medicaid.

* Discretionary spending (the light blue bottom chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It takes up about 10% of GDP forever. What's more, pretending that it can be capped is just game playing: anything one Congress can do, another can undo. So if you want to recommend a few discretionary cuts, that's fine. Beyond that, though, the discretionary budget should be left to Congress since it can be cut or expanded easily via the ordinary political process. That's why it's called "discretionary."

* Social Security (the dark blue middle chunk) isn't a long-term deficit problem. It goes up very slightly between now and 2030 and then flattens out forever. If Republicans were willing to get serious and knock off their puerile anti-tax jihad, it could be fixed easily with a combination of tiny tax increases and tiny benefit cuts phased in over 20 years that the public would barely notice. It deserves about a week of deliberation.

* Medicare, and healthcare in general, is a huge problem. It is, in fact, our only real long-term spending problem.​

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

The commission is chopping at stuff that isn't the problem.

My statement isn't so much about Medicaid and Medicare, but did you know the Commission report also states that we should get rid of government tax write offs for companies giving their employees health care?

Isn't this something that you wanted last year, but knew we weren't going to get?

I'm not working til then. If my retirement fails me, I'll be a homeless bum before I work a day past 62. 45 years in the workforce is plenty unless I actually find a job I love to death, then I'll work until I die.

You do realize that you'd just get reduced Social Security wages right? It's not like you won't get anything.

 

[GhaleonEB]

My statement isn't so much about Medicaid and Medicare, but did you know the Commission report also states that we should get rid of government tax write offs for companies giving their employees health care?

Isn't this something that you wanted last year, but knew we weren't going to get?

Yup. There are some good ideas in there, and I think that's one of them. But just look at the graph: the commission treats Social Security as the problem, when it's not. It's Medicare and Medicaid.

I just read that some of the staff of the deficit commission are not federal employees, but were outsourced to outside groups whose interests are now expressed in the document. Which seems like a problem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/10/AR2010111006850.html

 

[eznark]

Well, I look forward to working for the next 43 years of my life before SS finally kicks in to cover my ass.

Start marking those days off the calendar now.

How bout you plan and earn your retirement for yourself? It's not difficult for a 25 year old to start saving now. This thread is hilarious and sad.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

And that's what charity is for.

I always find it funny that people who advocate for less government intervention use the excuse that charity would pick up the tab or something.

But a vast majority of donations are only made because the company can use it as cheap PR because of the tax write off. Without the write off, I doubt major donators would be inclined to part with their money.

How bout you plan and earn your retirement for yourself? It's not difficult for a 25 year old to start saving now. This thread is hilarious and sad.

It takes 40 years to save up, let's say.

In that time, an economic collapse like we had a very few years ago can take your progress back DECADES with very little for you to do to help it or prevent it. One month of bad stocks can do years of fixing to bring you back to your level of savings.

Imagine turing 64 right before the crash. Boom, your life savings is gone, and you're now in poverty. It'll take another decade to earn that money you lost back, but you probably don't have that time, especially if you have to spend the next 10 years still working.

 

[Frank the Great]

The whole charity argument that libertarians use is such bullshit. Has there EVER in the entirety of human history been a time when wealthy people adequately supported the less fortunate members of society out of the goodness of their hearts? Where do people come up with this shit?

The confusion represented by the post also applies to many other aspects of economic libertarian thought. It is just empirically wrong for the most part, it amazes me how people can just blind themselves to history.

 

[state-of-the-art]

lolbertarians.

 

[leroidys]

Perhaps you would argue that voluntary charity would be inadequate?

If you argue such, you admit that you think that "our society" will "by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly to die in the streets."

So which is it?

In any event, while these "non-discretionary" programs do need to outright end - as they are the fiscal noose around our nation's neck - it is worth noting that the age elements within them were chosen based on life expectancy... at the very least, should we continue those programs, those numbers should continue to be tied to life expectancy. Otherwise, the liability of such programs will continue to balloon.

69 by 2050 is not nearly aggressive enough. Life expectancy in this country is pushing 80 now.

What the hell?

If we're going to leave the old out in the cold shouldn't we have some actual kind of PLAN? This bullshit meme of "that's what charity is for" is fucking ridiculous. I think if we're going to cut off old people's lifeline we should have some viable alternative that is not based on your blind, unfounded faith that charity will take care of it. SMH

 

[leroidys]

How bout you plan and earn your retirement for yourself? It's not difficult for a 25 year old to start saving now. This thread is hilarious and sad.

Joke poster confirmed?

 

[JGS]

You do realize that you'd just get reduced Social Security wages right? It's not like you won't get anything.

Only if you take them when you retire. My plan is to live off my retirement and get SS at 70 or 67 (depending how sickly I am). Although I think that Social Security will be around by the time I retire, I save like it won't be.

If all goes according to plan, it'll be pretty easy to live off retirement for 8 years or more with the main concern being healthcare. It's not an issue with my current employer at this time, but things change.

No matter what, I ain't working past 62!:lol