Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lou L
I agree that it would not be fair, especially to those currently receiving, or who are about to receive in the next decade or so. But, a line will eventually have to be drawn: the government will have to say, "if you're currently below age x, you'll need to start saving for your retirement with little help from the government."

I think this is the only way to fix the problem, permanently. The problem is that those younger taxpayers will have to make some contribution, with no hope of getting any benefits. Perhaps one way would be to divert the employee payroll tax into a 401(k), and continue the employer payroll tax for Social Security.

But, that's just a "broad stroke" proposal. There are other components of Social Security that must be addressed: survivor and disability benefits.

128 posted on 04/21/2015 8:42:39 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]


To: Lou L
Perhaps one way would be to divert the employee payroll tax into a 401(k), and continue the employer payroll tax for Social Security.

Coincidentally, the SSA did evaluate a proposal like this back in 2005:

Estimated Long-Range OASDI Financial Effects of a Proposal for Individual Social Security Investment

And another one, with a gradual shift of taxes to contributions:

Estimated Financial Effect s of the “Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005”

I haven't yet waded through all of them, as there's a lot of info.

132 posted on 04/21/2015 9:47:48 AM PDT by justlurking (tagline removed, as demanded by Admin Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson