I'm OK with that. But, what I don't like is that I'm the only one that has to live with the consequences.
I've made a lot of sacrifices over the past 30 years to invest in IRA's, 401(k)'s, and taxable investments to be sure that I can retire at a standard of living somewhere close to what I have now.
My neighbor earned approximately the same salary all this time, but he blew everything on new cars, boats, vacations, etc. He doesn't have anything left except a few hundred in his checking account.
Graham is essentially advocating that I should get shafted so that my neighbor can get his full benefit. I've been the responsible one, and I'm the one be penalized. That's wrong, no matter how you slice it.
You want to reduce Social Security's obligations? Fine. Do it across the board. Current projections are that existing taxes will only fund about 75% of legislated benefits after about 2040. Start reducing benefits for EVERYONE now, year by year until it meets that milestone. Keep going and reduce it to zero, while simultaneously ramping up a fully-funded private alternative.
But, targeting a specific group of people without sufficient political power to stop it is class warfare.
I appreciate your frustration with the situation and agree we need across the board cuts. I do not believe there is the will to get this done and the problem and solution will only get much more difficult. The end result is that, if you are under 65, your 401k, IRA, etc.. will be significantly devalued and/or worthless in 10 years. MY advice to you, pull out your funds, buy a big boat and go on a very nice vacation!
Or we could get serious and start fixing the problem now!
>You want to reduce Social Security’s obligations? Fine. Do it across the board. Current projections are that existing taxes will only fund about 75% of legislated benefits after about 2040. Start reducing benefits for EVERYONE now, year by year until it meets that milestone. Keep going and reduce it to zero, while simultaneously ramping up a fully-funded private alternative.
While I appreciate the principle of that, and don’t really have any objections to it in some ways, I also happen to want the program drastically changed, and the middle class (and up) weaned off of entitlements. The above won’t help with that cause. It will also be much, much harder to pass since everyone will scream at once.
>But, targeting a specific group of people without sufficient political power to stop it is class warfare.
No, why I advocate means testing is because I want this Ponzi driven welfare scheme exposed for what it is, so people don’t continue to fool themselves into thinking it is either solvent or an annuity. I want support for Social Security cut off at the knees because it is a scam. Anything which works to chip away at support for the program is an unvarnished good in my book.
The problem right now is that Social Security receives support from across the economic spectrum because FDR managed to get everyone dependent on it. It is untouchable for that very reason. Something has to be done to reduce that support.
As to your neighbor, look, I fully sympathize with your position. I hate when people get to be lazy sots and abuse the system. However that is inevitable in any welfare system. Social Security is a welfare system. It’s just a strange welfare system because it covers the non poor as well.