Either raise taxes or lower benefits

[beachFool]

perhaps, but the same constituency that has offshored good jobs now wants to eviscerate pensions/ retirement entitlements. it's rather transparent, and not in keeping with having a vibrant middle class. we are descending into a serflike nation dominated by service industry servitude. this course can be changed.

My suggestion is to A. Reread my column B. Read the commision's report (www.nap.edu).

If you will note I firmly believe Social Security is a great program...it's underfunded.

Members of the commission include the Urban League. Please, please, please show me where the Urban League wants to eviscerate retirement entitlements.

The growth of entitlements is unsustainable. The neat thing is that the commission offers a no tax increase approach to SS woes, a no benefit cut to SS woes and two alternatives that split the difference.

You are correct the course can be changed but only by making some difficult decisions.

 

[Bobskunk]

Hi Buz. Important topic, without a doubt. I think that based upon life expectancy increases, perhaps raising the age a bit would be helpful. I wonder what the impact would be if each of us had to wait another year, or two, or somewhere in between. My SS retirement age is 67, and I could probably manage to wait until 68, or 69.
We effectively lowered some people's payments when portions of SS became taxable in 83. The effect is the same, but it's more palatable to tax it than to cut it.
What makes our ideas difficult is that current politicians have to ask us to make sacrifices now in order to avoid difficulty (catastrophe) in later years. If they can avoid the problem until they are out of office, then they can leave the next guy holding the bag. See you soon. I have been in NOLA for a few weeks.

 

[Bob]

My suggestion is to A. Reread my column B. Read the commision's report (www.nap.edu).

If you will note I firmly believe Social Security is a great program...it's underfunded.

Members of the commission include the Urban League. Please, please, please show me where the Urban League wants to eviscerate retirement entitlements.

The growth of entitlements is unsustainable. The neat thing is that the commission offers a no tax increase approach to SS woes, a no benefit cut to SS woes and two alternatives that split the difference.

You are correct the course can be changed but only by making some difficult decisions.

as i stated, the correct course of action is not to eviscerate entitlements/ pensions in an economic downturn. look at the attack currently underway in the state capital on teacher's wages/pensions. it comes from the right. rubio/mccollum will continue the attack. the numbers on social security can be righted via means testing/minor alterations to retirement dates, not cuts/taxes. a vibrant economy and low unemployment will provide the necessary funding. that's the correct, non-reactionary macro view. i am not referring to the urban league.

 

[Bob]

About 37 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in three decades, according to a new Pew Research Center study......this is what will drive the problem or solve it. these are third world unemployment figures created by the policies of the last 20-25 years.

 

[beachFool]

Meatloaf said two outta three ain't bad.

as i stated, the correct course of action is not to eviscerate entitlements/ pensions in an economic downturn. look at the attack currently underway in the state capital on teacher's wages/pensions. it comes from the right. rubio/mccollum will continue the attack. the numbers on social security can be righted via means testing/minor alterations to retirement dates, not cuts/taxes. a vibrant economy and low unemployment will provide the necessary funding. that's the correct, non-reactionary macro view. i am not referring to the urban league.

Part of the solution I referenced includes minor alterations to the retirement dates. The problem with raising the retirement age higher than 68 is that a lot of blue collar jobs can not be done when you are that old. Heck, I couldn't work blue collar and I'm 54.

Also the committee's solutions referenced a type of means testing, more a surgical means test, I guess.

Like Meatloaf said two outta three ain't bad.

The only other item is how inflation is factored and I disagree that using an inflation index that is only slightly lower than the CPI is "eviscerating" anything.

Again, if you take the time to delve into the report you will find these folks ain't right wing extremists.

SS is a strong program it just needs some tweaks.

 

[Bobskunk]

I am on board with sacrificing somewhere, but means testing is hard for me to accept. I'll just go with one example of a friend of mine (and spouse) who has always made more money than I have, and has blown through a substantial inheritance as well. He even laughed at my last car, which was 10 years old at the time, and called it a heap. My car and my wife's car are 11 years old. He has been bankrupt, and is pretty close again.

We are the same age, so we will be applying for SS at the same time. Perhaps they will look at my little savings, and determine that I do not qualify for the same benefits as my friend, or that mine should be taxed more heavily. I doubt that they will be able to audit one's financial restraint over the past 40 years to determine whether or not one should be eligible. This strikes me as unfair, and it rewards bad behavior.

Conversely, there are poor people who were lucky to survive, much less accumulate a retirement account. Separating them from spendthirifts is difficult to do.

 

[Bob]

Part of the solution I referenced includes minor alterations to the retirement dates. The problem with raising the retirement age higher than 68 is that a lot of blue collar jobs can not be done when you are that old. Heck, I couldn't work blue collar and I'm 54.

Also the committee's solutions referenced a type of means testing, more a surgical means test, I guess.

Like Meatloaf said two outta three ain't bad.

The only other item is how inflation is factored and I disagree that using an inflation index that is only slightly lower than the CPI is "eviscerating" anything.

Again, if you take the time to delve into the report you will find these folks ain't right wing extremists.

SS is a strong program it just needs some tweaks.

i too, am 54, and believe the program, going forward, should only target those who need it. radical change is not necessary when many incremental tweaks are available. i will say this about our country's current philosophy. it's a quote by abraham flexner. "probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. we must make our choice. we cannot have both." i will take his quote one step further. neither is possible when the youth of this country cannot find meaningful, stable employment. how bright a future do you see for our country when it's leaders cater to the mi complex and wall street as it's middle class withers on the vine???

 

[Matt J]

At what point is Social Security treated as a safety net? At what point will people admit that they don't need it or that perhaps you should have to qualify economically to receive it?

My grand father worked his entire life and paid into Social Security for at least 95% of his working life. I say 95% as he lived through the depression and was in the military when SS was enacted. His brother on the other hand spent his entire life avoiding work or if he did he worked under the table to avoid paying SS. Of course when my great uncle retired he immediately applied for and received SS. My grand father wouldn't speak to him ever again, but felt that denying an old man the ability to survive was wrong. He also never applied for SS himself and felt that offset the difference. He felt that while he did pay into it he was lucky enough to have two career's that provided him with the ability to be comfortable in retirement and didn't have to have the money "paid back to him". He explained that I would never understand unless I lived through something like the Great Depression. I still haven't had to live through one of those, but I'm coming much closer to understanding what he was saying.

 

[beachFool]

I am on board with sacrificing somewhere, but means testing is hard for me to accept. .

To paraphrase Bill Clinton it depends on your definition of means testing.

I strongly disagree with the idea that if you have over "X" amount of income you don't qualify for SS.

However the committee recommends incorporating into the formala of how SS benefits is computed a type of means testing. To wit, for the top 70% of earners their benefit would be reduced, not eliminated.

This way the folks on the bottom aren't hammered.

SS is a form of social insurance and it's worked pretty darn well.


More at www.nap.edu

 

[Bobskunk]

I had not checked this forum in a few months. Usually it degrades into sniping pretty quickly, and I don't learn much. So far, so good on this thread. Buz, I had been an advocate of raising the age, but had never given thought to some of the more physically demanding careers. Every time I see construction workers in the freezing weather, or our 98 degree, 95 percent humidity days, I think about how tough that would be, especially at 60. Good point. Taxing SS for some, as we do now, is effectively means testing. It appears that we are going to have to do more of it.
To really make an impact, we will probably have to eliminate or greatly reduce the benefit for those who are moderately wealthy. I would love to get a check, but in some ways I feel that I have already benefitted greatly from SS. My mom and stepdad receive it, and if they did not, they would run out of money quickly, and this would impact my ability to save for retirement. If I inherit anything, which is not a priority for me, it would be due to their having received social security, thus allowing them to preserve some assets. Anyway, my hope is that if SS is eliminated for me, I can be thankful for the life and opportunity that I have had.