Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 1977 times)

    SS should really be thought of as an insurance program more than an individual savings plan.  Some people will get a disproportionately large benefit, others will get none.

     

    And, hey, remember this is the easiest of the big 3 spending buckets!

    Runners run.


    Fat butt on couch

      I don't think its quite an outlier when there was a generation at retirement age in 1936 that had the same thing as Spaniel described.

       

      The issue that I think he was trying to point out was that that generation received benefits without contributing, meaning that they were funded by the next generation.

       

      The design of Social Security was flawed from its origin.

       

      This.

       

      The program was put in a hole from the very get-go.  Also read up on the SS "Trust Fund", which doesn't actually hold any money, it is quite an interesting...and potentially disturbing...arrangement.

       

      Now that the age stratification of our society is undergoing a huge change, this structure is becoming a huge liability to solvency.

      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

       

        SS should really be thought of as an insurance program more than an individual savings plan.  Some people will get a disproportionately large benefit, others will get none.

         

         

        Yes.  And I wasn't saying having income qualification is wrong.  In fact, it seems like a reasonable solution.  Though I'm not sure I think of it as insurance.  You buy insurance to have pooled resources to pay unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic loss.  My ability to be in position to collect or not collect is more under my control, but that's another argument.  Put another way, if it's insurance I should be able to choose to assume the risk. 

         

        I'd just call it a tax, not insurance, and should be lumped in whenever we consider the conversation about increasing tax rates, particularly in the context of raising income limits for coiontributions. 

         


        HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

          Screw the World.  We have the bombs and TanyaS has her finger on the button.

           

          Besides, scaling back spending and changing our strategy by which we exert our influence and look after our interests, is a very different thing than walking away from them.

           

          I've heard it said that in the cold war, we got other people to fight our wars by proxy. Then in Iraq and Afghanistan, we started fighting the wars ourselves, and it has turned out to be far more expensive (well, especially in US casualties, but that isn't so relevant to the fiscal picture).

           

          Of course I've also often heard it said that some of the big money sinks in "Defense" spending are the huge weapon programs -- the airplanes, etc.

           

          I was going to write that that sounds orthogonal to the issue of whether we fight by proxy or not, but now it occurs to me, that fighting by proxy may be cheaper in terms of weapon systems because we sell the weapons and therefore get some revenue out of them.

          It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

            Yes.  And I wasn't saying having income qualification is wrong.  In fact, it seems like a reasonable solution.  Though I'm not sure I think of it as insurance.  You buy insurance to have pooled resources to pay unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic loss.  My ability to be in position to collect or not collect is more under my control, but that's another argument.  Put another way, if it's insurance I should be able to choose to assume the risk. 

             

            I'd just call it a tax, not insurance, and should be lumped in whenever we consider the conversation about increasing tax rates, particularly in the context of raising income limits for coiontributions. 

             

            But in terms of solvency, don't we want to treat it as insurance? I mean, get the actuarial people to set up the cost structure to hopefully not be going into deficit. That's what accountants are for, right?

            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

              Yes.  And I wasn't saying having income qualification is wrong.  In fact, it seems like a reasonable solution.  Though I'm not sure I think of it as insurance.  You buy insurance to have pooled resources to pay unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic loss.  My ability to be in position to collect or not collect is more under my control, but that's another argument.  Put another way, if it's insurance I should be able to choose to assume the risk. 

               

              I'd just call it a tax, not insurance, and should be lumped in whenever we consider the conversation about increasing tax rates, particularly in the context of raising income limits for coiontributions. 

               

              I consider it a tax as well, thus my regressive/progressive argument.  And I'd be more than willing to discuss some need-based payout factor (the more you make in retirement the less benefit you get) as well.

               

              I was saying it's insurance as opposed to a retirement plan, not as opposed to a tax.  I was referring to the pay out, not the pay in side.

              Runners run.


              Ostrich runner

                There are a few different programs under the SS umbrella. Some of those are more like individual insurance and some are more broadly a social insurance. I don't really think the program would take that much fixing. That said, it will be bleeding money until the baby boomers are gone. The question is what the timeline is after that. 

                http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

                Scout7


                CPT Curmudgeon

                  I've heard it said that in the cold war, we got other people to fight our wars by proxy. Then in Iraq and Afghanistan, we started fighting the wars ourselves, and it has turned out to be far more expensive (well, especially in US casualties, but that isn't so relevant to the fiscal picture).

                   

                  Of course I've also often heard it said that some of the big money sinks in "Defense" spending are the huge weapon programs -- the airplanes, etc.

                   

                  I was going to write that that sounds orthogonal to the issue of whether we fight by proxy or not, but now it occurs to me, that fighting by proxy may be cheaper in terms of weapon systems because we sell the weapons and therefore get some revenue out of them.

                   

                   

                  We still had to pay to recruit, train, and manage the people responsible for the conduct of the proxy wars.  Never mind the cash used for bribery, weapons systems, personnel, and whatever else was needed to run those proxy wars.

                   

                  Wars by proxy are what got us into the issues we are facing now.  We supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, then abandoned them as soon as the Soviets withdrew.  The vacuum that followed was quickly filled by the Taliban.

                   

                  No, proxy wars are seldom a cheaper alternative, especially in the long run.

                   

                  As to how we reduce our defense spending long-term...  Good luck with that.  Defense spending is linked to what's happening in the rest of the world, and not really with what's going on internally.  In other words, we tend to see defense dollars increase when tensions are higher.

                     it will be bleeding money until the baby boomers are gone. The question is what the timeline is after that. 

                     

                    there is no "after that". 

                     

                    a single decade of paying out to 1 person for every 2.5 paying in and this thing is done. 

                    In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                     

                     

                     






                    Menace to Sobriety

                      I don't think its quite an outlier when there was a generation at retirement age in 1936 that had the same thing as Spaniel described.

                       

                      The issue that I think he was trying to point out was that that generation received benefits without contributing, meaning that they were funded by the next generation.

                       

                      The design of Social Security was flawed from its origin.

                       

                       

                       Regular monthly payments didn't begin until Jan 1940, 3 years after the SS tax started being collected.  So, no one in 1936, 37, 38 or 39  had the same thing Spaniel described, much less a "generation".

                      Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.

                         Regular monthly payments didn't begin until Jan 1940, 3 years after the SS tax started being collected.  So, no one in 1936, 37, 38 or 39  had the same thing Spaniel described, much less a "generation".

                         

                        You and your damned....facts.

                        Runners run.

                          But in terms of solvency, don't we want to treat it as insurance? I mean, get the actuarial people to set up the cost structure to hopefully not be going into deficit. That's what accountants are for, right?

                           

                          SSI's own accountants/actuaries could probably handle it fine if Congress didn't keep meddling.

                          Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


                          Ostrich runner

                            there is no "after that". 

                             

                            a single decade of paying out to 1 person for every 2.5 paying in and this thing is done. 

                             

                            I think we hashed this out to some extent a few months ago, but I would expect some changes to the formula before then. If everything ends up as a worst case scenario economically and demographically, you could be right. I think there will be enough of a shift in national priority to turn it around.

                            http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum

                              SSI's own accountants/actuaries could probably handle it fine if Congress didn't keep meddling.

                               

                              It's obvious that the public is highly informed about this issue, so it's really surprising to me that Congress screws it up.

                                It's obvious that the public is highly informed about this issue, so it's really surprising to me that Congress screws it up.

                                 

                                Yeah, we all know exactly what should be done.

                                Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.