Posted on 09/16/2011 7:23:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Dr. K is, as usual, confused. Social Security isn’t much more mandatory than the classic Ponzi scheme.”
You mean, except one is voluntary and the other is mandatory?
The key phrase in your contention is “as long as people keep voting to be forced.” The similarity to the Ponzi scheme is that the suckers don’t know their money is gone until it’s too late. And for many over 50, that is what has happened.
SS CAN be fixed for...by voluntary privatization, so that the suckers like me that have paid in for a long, long time don’t lose everything they put in and younger participants who have paid in something will get that something out. Some will volunteer to put some in (just as some overpay income taxes to get a rebate at the end of the year, even though the rate of return is dismal) even though they know it will NOT perform well. The fix, as you say, involves not promoting it as a “ promise to care for everyone.”
Under 40 can opt out.
Over 65 still collect.
50 - you get to keep paying, and never collect.
Got it. I vote no.
If you can get your hands on an old copy of William F. Buckey's Up From Liberalism (1959), you'll get a surprise. Near the end of the book, after examining the issue, he concludes with the same proposition that you offered.
Only back then, there was no ZeroCare and entitlement crisis to gird people. Barry Goldwater tried that approach in 1964, and in so doing got burned.
Krauthhammer assumes that people can continue to work till way pass 65 and THEIR COMPANIES WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THEM.
Ever hear of SAVINGS?
Live modestly, save, and not be a ward of your fellow taxpayer for decades of able-bodied retirement?
I dont think anyone is suggesting they raise the age tomorrow.
Delaying 15 years will simply kick the can (accumulate trillions in debt), and screw those who are paying in now, who have no hope of enjoying the same benefits of those they’re funding.
What is the life expectancy of those that make it to 60?
As usual, Krauthammer defends sociopaths.
Social security is an intergenerational money transfer
that was screwed up by corrupt people for whom
there is neither accountability nor transparency.
It is NOT a Ponzi scheme but has been made one by
corrupt individuals and THEIR schemes.
You dont fix a Ponzi scheme. OK so it will just be a slightly better ponzi scheme?
“50 - you get to keep paying, and never collect.”
I don’t know where that was suggested, but no, 50 you get the option to privatize your account going forward. And you do collect what you have put in.
Then why haven't they fixed it? Bush tried, and it got shot down. Thus far, it is has been a political poison arrow. I hope that Americans will wake up to the fact that Social Security simply cannot keep going the way it has been.
RE: Ever hear of SAVINGS?
Yes, it’s called Social Security, money which was promised to people if they PAY INTO IT ( which they do, FORCIBLY ), and which they were promised when they paid in that they could get by age 62 ( and fully by 65 ).
“Im suggesting that aside from avoiding disruption to current and imminent retirees, the age should be floated annually to ensure ZERO BORROWING to pay SS benefits.”
That’s where privatization comes in.That becomes your choice and leaves room for higher profit (and loss, presumably, for risk takers and those that have private funds to bolster retirement) to be kept from being “raided.”
Can you cite the quote where she said any such thing?
Indeed. Unfortunately, older people have been forced to pay into this money they could have been saving.
The present value of the money I have been forced to pay for SS is about 1.5 Million Dollars.
Write me a check right now, and I will opt out.
Absolutely not. Means testing is just another phrase for "spread the wealth", AKA communism/socialism. We need to be moving away from that obviously destructive policy, not embracing it.
The solution is simple - end the program, reimburse everyone that has paid into it, and allow private, tax-free programs to replace it.
Bush had it right people should be able to keep 50% of their Social Security in an account that you can’t draw from until retired.At least you would have more than what the feds could give you.
The draw back is congress couldn’t dip it’s paw into it,must be why they will never pass such a law.
The solution is simple - end the program, reimburse everyone that has paid into it.
RE: The draw back is congress couldnt dip its paw into it
Why can’t we vote people in who will pass a law stating that Congress CANNOT EVER touch any money in Social Security to pay for current expenses?
We keep talking about this so-called lock box for the longest time (without doing a darn thing about it).
It has now become a Saturday Night Live joke.
See here (starting from 9:20)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAx6Ib81Y4
Just because people are living longer doesnt mean they are able to work longer. You cant pull people out of nursing homes and tell them to get a job just because they have a pulse.
Your second sentence is desperate hyperbole.
PS: You’re allowed to SAVE your own money if you want to retire earlier than the taxpaying workers can afford to support you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.