Social Security Restructuring (Part I)the_lanceMarch 14 2005, 18:48:47 UTC
Social Security restructuring is going to happen in my lifetime, the necessity of it not even doubted by hardcore backers. By all estimates, Social Security will not have enough money to pay me any sort of "living wage" by the time I am old enough to not work. I don't look forward to retiring six to seven years later than my grandfather thanks to scheduled age increases in Social Security either. Democrats can't even deny that it doesn't need reform because they were the one's proposing it in the late 90's. Both sides are playing political handball and it makes the legitimate issue at hand disappear in the political fog
( ... )
Social Security Restructuring (Part II)the_lanceMarch 14 2005, 18:52:14 UTC
3. The Need for Separation: Social Security and a Pension plan should be separated because while a pension plan is almost self-sustaining, Social security shouldn't be. Social security should be a government assistance program for poor seniors and the disabled. A government backed pension plan at either the state or federal level should be a retirement option for seniors--with ownership, equity buildup and investment options to hedge risk (like the federal and state governments currently offer their own employees). They have two separate goals so separation needs to happen
( ... )
Here goes nothing...skaloopMarch 14 2005, 23:41:16 UTC
Based upon the five points provided, it appears that "reform" calls for almost complete elimination of the Social Security system. A radical and admittedly aggressive change
( ... )
You'll take note...the_lanceMarch 15 2005, 07:57:49 UTC
I believe the term I titled it by was restructuring which is essential what it is. I feel my reform would actually make Social Security stronger rather than eliminate the program because there certainly is a need. Let me restate a couple of my reasonings from above
( ... )
Apologies for using 'reform' when you indeed had clearly stated restructuring. Nonetheless, I still consider the level of restructuring you call for overkill.
There seems to be two extremes posited. On the one hand, we keep SS the way it is, in which case it collapses in 50 years. On the other hand, my opponent calls for drastic restructuring.
- Turning it into a safety net is exactly what I want to do. A safety net wouldn't require payroll taxes because it could be rolled into the income tax (a more progressive tax than the payroll tax that is currently capped at $90,000). It should be treated as a welfare system: requirement based, livable, a safety net, but not extremely comfortable. People should be encouraged to save and investHe calls for transition to a needs-based system of distribution, similar to welfare. Well, welfare is precisely what it will be. Despite clinging to the name Social Security, it will in fact be a welfare system. Such an all-or-none divide fails to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that the
( ... )
Comments 9
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
There seems to be two extremes posited. On the one hand, we keep SS the way it is, in which case it collapses in 50 years. On the other hand, my opponent calls for drastic restructuring.
- Turning it into a safety net is exactly what I want to do. A safety net wouldn't require payroll taxes because it could be rolled into the income tax (a more progressive tax than the payroll tax that is currently capped at $90,000). It should be treated as a welfare system: requirement based, livable, a safety net, but not extremely comfortable. People should be encouraged to save and investHe calls for transition to a needs-based system of distribution, similar to welfare. Well, welfare is precisely what it will be. Despite clinging to the name Social Security, it will in fact be a welfare system. Such an all-or-none divide fails to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that the ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment