My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?
My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?
Since the population pyramid has not worked that way, you will simply have a worse time, and younger people even worse, unless you can convince the people after to take on even more debt.
"Children are the retirement plan" has been true all along, only obfuscated. It would have been more sensible if social security payouts were contingent on how much tax revenue your children made, rather than the current model.
Why is "just pay current recipients enough to get them to STFU and phase out the program" not an option?
It's not like anyone under 60 didn't at least have some expectation SS might go tits up. Younger genx on down have been raised to expect nothing so they won't be too sad. They'll be happy to stop paying if anything.
even many in my Gen Z cohort would be pissed, although i would be celebrating
I think that's filter bubble speaking. People who aren't ideologically in favor of entitlements would likely be mildly for or against. People who are ideologically against entitlements would consider it a good thing.
Especially if they amount they're going to be paid is going from $LOTS to zero.
Don’t think this is “filter bubble” as I don’t interact with many Gen Xers and the ones I do likely skew skeptical of SS.
Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement.
It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-term. If it were pitched as an additional tax and spend welfare program it’d have never gotten off the ground to begin with.
Without your dollars going in today, current retirees would not be receiving meaningful benefits - as their contributions largely went towards those retired while they were working. The whole idea is more of a social contract between generations than anything else.
Some approaches I was mulling over:
1. The easiest way is to dilute SS without pushing the years down even further is to remove the required COLA adjustments.
It's probably the easiest; also the least imaginative; and may be too slow.
2. The other is what the other poster mentioned: Real social security really comes down to your kids; and this is what I think should be the basis for a "new deal".
This has to be done very carefully--I can see so many ways this can be abused--but longer-term I think giving some sort of tax break or even tax credit--based on the social security numbers of the parents--allocated by the parent(s).
For the family that can't do it full-time, they can then use that credit or offset to hire some help.
Thoughts?
Edit: I went through this but with hired help. It was both necessary and awful; and I wish I had an option to help my parents directly full-time, but I didn't have the means at the time (I suppose I still don't).
Edit 2: Fixing social security alone doesn't address the wider fiscal problem. It's almost a drop in the bucket. Healthcare is the problem.
I mean the elderly in 50 years time, when Gen Zers and younger have to deal with the same question.
There’s no debt being paid; money is simply taken from Peter, and money is simply given to Paul.
It’s not a retirement program, it’s retirement subsidization.
If you are willing to concede the above, I'll reclassify it as a proper "subsidy" insomuch as it was a law that was passed, and it is a clear act by the government to incentivize activity "X". At which point my discussion will quickly turn to "Holy shit, why are we still trying to empire build in the year of our Lord 2025? Shouldn't we have changed this by now?"
If not... Still seeing it as a Ponzi. A fundamentally degenerate and unstable financial model, intended only to benefit the people who have been in it the longest solely for the purpose of self-enrichment. Well branded, mind; who doesn't want Social Security? But a Ponzi in essence nevertheless.