Posted on 04/22/2015 5:28:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
Some are touting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to take an ax to Social Security as an act of bold political leadership.
Sorry, I see the opposite.
America needs leadership to replace old dysfunctional baggage with new programs and ideas fitting for a free 21st-century country. We don't need those who think leadership is retrofitting the country into our old baggage.
It's the latter that Christie proposes. His "solution" to the impending bankruptcy of Social Security is to phase out benefits for retirees earning $80,000 to $200,000 and above and increase the retirement age from 67 to 69, and 62 to 64 for early retirement.
Social Security started out as a safety net for America's elderly. It then grew into a national retirement program. Now Christie wants to transform it into a new welfare program. And like most welfare ideas, where the force of government is used to transfer wealth from the "haves" to the "have-nots," it hurts both.
To add unfortunate irony to the picture, Social Security, whose existing structure Christie is so committed to saving, already disadvantages low-income Americans.
Here's the conclusion of a 2013 study published by the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.: "When considered across many decades -- historically, currently and in the near future -- Social Security redistributes from Hispanics, blacks and other people of color to whites."
According to the calculations of the authors of the Urban Institute study, for every $100 that white beneficiaries pay in Social Security payroll taxes, they receive $113 in benefits. But blacks receive only $89 in benefits and Hispanics only $58 in benefits for every $100 they pay in taxes.
There are a number of factors contributing to this disparity.
Social Security penalizes those with shorter lifespans. Whereas national life expectancy is 79 years, for blacks it is 74 years. For black males, it is 71 years.
Social Security is biased toward married households rather than singles, because marrieds can take advantage of spousal benefits. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2008, 32 percent of the adult black population was married compared to 56 percent of the adult white population.
Social Security penalizes younger workers. Over time, Social Security taxes have gone up, so younger workers pay more than their predecessors. As of the 2010 census, the median age of whites was 41, blacks 32, and Hispanics 27.
So despite what we hear from the political left about how critical Social Security is for minority Americans, the truth is quite the opposite.
We just need to appreciate that Social Security is a government-planning program. It limits the freedom of individuals to control and manage their own earnings and savings in a fashion that reflects their own circumstances.
According to the Social Security Administration, about 165 million Americans are covered by Social Security. How can government bureaucrats sitting in Washington design a retirement program appropriate for 165 million unique individual realities?
Social Security taxes preclude wealth creation for low-income workers by taxing away the only funds they have available for investing in real retirement savings.
Median white household wealth, according to Pew, is $141,000, contrasted with $13,700 for blacks and $11,700 for Hispanics. The percentage of whites with IRAs or Keogh plans is 35 percent, contrasted with 10 percent for blacks and 11 percent for Hispanics. The percentage of whites with 401(k) plans is 45 percent, contrasted with 24 percent of blacks and 30 percent of Hispanics.
As a step toward real reform, my organization, CURE, has proposed what we call a 30/30 plan. Young workers 30 years old and younger and earning $30,000 or less should be given the option of opting out of Social Security and investing their payroll tax in their own personal retirement account.
America needs real change. And that doesn't mean tweaking a broken system and forcing all Americans into it, as Christie wants to do.
Maybe Krispy should offer up his government pension in solidarity.
Continuing to raise the retirement age is an excellent idea - I would not have expected it from Christie. I still will not vote for him or for anyone who does not support (1) protecting our borders, (2) protecting our God-given right to keep and bear arms, and (3) repealing Obamacare. Still, it's nice to hear a leading RINO endorse the only responsible option. I'd add three years instead of two to the retirement ages, two months of age for each year that passes (so it would take eighteen years to add the full three years), since the program is not sustainable otherwise.
I would support pretty much everything in Christie’s Social Security plan and I’m of an age and in an income bracket where it would hit me fairly hard. I’d also support a fairly radical overhaul of Medicare. The money I’ve been paying in Social Security over the past 30 years is gone. Its not in some account. No one can give it back to me. the people who spent it — our parents, grandparents and great grand parents’ generations — are dead. Combine this with fairly large cuts in Welfare and other social welfare programs and we may actually put the country back on solid fiscal footing.
It would solve many problems if they raised the retirement age to 79 and the minimum wage to $393.57 an hour.
/s/
IMHO
There is a generation-sized chunk of cash which is simply -gone- due to demographic changes and the unwillingness of politicians to fund what they have "promised".
No one under 50-55 is ever going to get back what they have paid in, and the sooner this is faced the better for all concerned.
In order to make SocSec solvent, there must be either large tax increases on the young (which will not be reflected in their eventual benefits) or large benefit cuts (approx 20%) on recipients.
I would prefer the latter, and across the board rather than means tested.
The second reason is that he's very familiar with the demographic and financial disaster facing Social Security and Medicare. The cost of supporting retirees has driven New Jersey to the brink of insolvency, and his successful campaigns in this state were based largely on his goal of reining in these costs to ward off a financial disaster.
When push comes to shove, they’re just going to eliminate the cap.
This country is simply going to euthanize people before they ever collect much money in cash and benefits from Social Security and Medicare.
Part of the problem is that you can’t get decent interest on your savings anymore. And it keeps getting worse. Would not be surprised to see negative interest rates within a decade, which is akin to a “wealth tax”. To me, this is a backdoor, unlegislated Social Security cut. And if you think its just a coincidence, I’ve got a bride in Brooklyn to sell you.
That’s the concept behind raising the retirement age.
Christie undoubtedly committed political suicide with this proposal. While it's not a platform he'll ever be able to run on, it's a subject that must eventually be addressed. I admire his courage in at least bringing up the topic. Obviously, Warren's idea of increasing SS benefits must be shot down quickly because there's no financial way to achieve that under the current system.
How about freeing us from Social Security. Shut it down.
Pray America is waking
And what about the elderly like I who are on Social Security? Tough luck, huh?
Without the government, I guess we would all die. Can you say enslaved?
I guess they’ll have to rework the mortality tables and put in tiered benefits so that the minorities get their fair share!! (/s)
Do you know why you can't get "decent interest" on your savings? It has to do with monetary policy. There's always a price to pay when the Fed controls the money flow. Either money can be had cheaply (making interest rates low), or money can be hard to get (making interest rates higher.)
For the past couple of decades, money has been easy to get, and rates have been low. That's supposed to be good for business and the economy in general. Unfortunately, that's bad for savers in banks and "safe" investments such as government bonds.
I'm not advocating for a particular policy, a tight or loose supply, I'm only suggesting that there are trade-offs with each approach.
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.