From his column:
"If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit?"
As is plainly obviousl from the above, the man's not going to be winning any points with the AARP any time soon.
Ron Paul is the only person in Congress who speaks the truth about this abomination. If it were run honestly (and that's assuming that the federal government has any business running it at all, which it doesn't), then retirement age would be a simple matter of policy, not a matter of solvency. In other words, it wouldn't matter from a bookkeeping perspective what the retirement age is, because it would simply be money that's kept in account for the person who paid the money into it. But since it's not being run honestly, playing around with retirement ages is only going to be a bandaid - and a highly unfair one at that.
If politicians want to fix socialist insecurity ... here is the bottom line ...
1) raise the retirment age ... raise it one year every three years until it is actuarial in balance.!
2) DO NOT raise the FICA taxes! DO NOT expand the income limit on what can be taxed (because the payouts are capped). DO NOT adjust the payouts based on age and gender. KEY IS NOT TO TWEAK THE CURRENT SYSTEM ... BUT BE ABLE TO PHASE OUT OF IT ... AND DO IT REALISTICALLY!
3) All those in the current play ... remain in the current plan. Govt. will eventually phase out and eat the cost of FDR's screw deal. Because those of us in it now cannot ask for our money back ... because it has already gone to current recipients, etc.
4) People under a certain age (e.g. 16) begin contributing to a new plan ... there own personal retirement account (PRA) ... basically a forced 401K ... functions the same as a 401K. They die at age 45 and it goes to their beneficiaries (w/option to roll into their own PRA). If you work in the U.S. since you are 18ish (and stay gainfully employed for most of your life), you obviously can have a better chance of retiring earlier than those who don't (e.g. that would include immigrants who move here at a later age in their life). So, retirement would be chosen by the individual (govt. would unfortunately have some say ... i'm being REALISTIC ... minimum age of 59 or something to start drawing an annuity ... and at death ... as mentioned proceeds going to beneficiaries.
If you don't have enough money to retire, you obviously need to continue to work. If you aren't physically or mentally able to work, that is what state and federal disablity programs are for. Whether you like it or not they won't go away. Concern is obviously abuse ...
for example ... I have a neighbor who collects disability with a supposed nerve condition (kind of like fibra mialga ... however you spell) ... but she was okay to be outside landscaping and cutting the grass on a few occassions.
Key is for SS to phase out of current system and replace it with plan where money is account belonging to payee. Unfornately that doesn't happen overnight ... IN REALITY ... and why screw the next generations of the country just because our generation has been.
Just like those who sacrificed themselves in a war for freedom. Where they fighting for their own or their children's and grandchildren's?
What legislation has Ron Paul submitted to address the problems with the socialist insecurity system?