Posted on 10/23/2013 6:27:50 PM PDT by Nachum
There is one thing that the US can and will do to delay the collapse of the current welfare state that nations like Greece were unable to do. Before the electorate allows SS to be significantly altered, we’re going to significantly cut down the burden of the world’s defense we take on. In other words, first we’re going to cut propping up the welfare states of Western Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, East Asia and others before we stop propping up our own.
If it's fair for you and me, it's fair for Phil Knight. I'm not into discriminating against someone just because they're rich.
Sure, Social Security needs to be reformed. But discriminating against rich people -- or anybody else -- isn't the way to do it.
A far better reform would be what Bush proposed: Drop the defined benefits and privatize it!
“Social Security recipients aren’t moochers or takers”
Perhaps you are not aware of how SS has expanded beyond its originally scope.
Choose the right ailment and you have a disability check for life.
I know “immigrants” that come here just long enough to get citizen ship and then go back home to live comfortably off their SSI monthly checks.
I know
They can't afford much because their attendees pay "charity" thru taxes (Gov't welfare). Because so many are on the dole the churches have neither the incentive or the money to fulfill their role.
Medicare has inflated the cost of chemo artificially...Gov't infusions always do. The free market would rectify even that.
In addition there are very wealthy people who would donate and create charity hospitals. Perhaps all would not be helped, but more than the socialized medicine which is going to pick and choose who gets care.
Of course, you are. You're proposing that he be refused any benefit from his contribution precisely BECAUSE he's rich.
I want a system where my children don't have to be put into a situation where they might need to depend on the government. Let them keep their money and invest as they see fit...
Which is exactly what Bush's proposal was designed to lead to. And that approach is what would constitute real Social Security reform.
Would it work? It's already proven to work. The Galveston County, TX privatized the social security contributions of their employees back in the fifties (when governmental institutions were allowed to do so) and their retirees are millionaires. The nation of Chile adopted the same system and has had similar results.
If you're interested in the Galveston retirement system, Google it. Here's one example:
SOME people get more beneifits than they paid in. Not everybody. First of all, I’m an employer, so I not only pay my own payments (both halves) I pay half of the charge for every employee I have. That’s a lot of money.
The above is the reason some day we will indeed have riots from people wanting more when austerity kicks in from a lack of money.
What you say is true. After the gov’t has taken half our income it does not leave much for food, house payment, ins for car and house not to mention you still owe property taxes. Leaves precious little to give to the church, and unless you are a mega church you make do with what comes in the door.
Gates could have given his billions for private hospitals instead of this crappy Common Core education he wants fausted on our children...indoctrinatiion is all it is.
I recommend that you read the entire article. Social security and medicare recipients are NOT included with these means tested programs. Add them into the mix and you have roughly a 1.5 to 1 recipient to full-time worker ratio.
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.