Solution to social security?

[TheCaliforniaLife]

How do you propose we reform social security? Increase taxes or decrease benefits? Privatize? When I hear about privatizing reform efforts, people don't actually address the real issues with privatization. Do we still pay for those who have paid into the system? How do we pay for these transition costs for people who are going to collect on social security with a pool of workers to pay for it? Do we keep the 6.2% employer social security liability? Do we still try to help people who will eventually need the benefits of social security? Do we use a reverse income tax like Milton Friedman proposed?

[malkusm]

First, allow the young people to opt out. As a 23 year old, I don’t ever expect to receive a dime of my involuntary Social Security payments. Due to the inflationary monetary policy set by the Federal Reserve, any benefits that are paid out today to individuals are much higher than the receipts from those same individuals 10, 20, or 30 years ago; the system is inherently unsustainable. What if SSA was optional? What if, rather than being required to pay into a fiscally and morally bankrupt system, I could keep my money and choose to save or spend it where I wish? In the short term, this may cause a further increase in the deficit as we must honor our commitments to those reliant on Social Security; in the long term, this reduces the future liabilities and the size of government.

Next, end automatic payroll deductions for Social Security for those who choose to remain in the system. Certainly, when faced with explicitly paying hundreds of dollars per paycheck for the government to handle your retirement, that pill becomes much more difficult to swallow. It highlights the true nature of the problem: that the government assumes it can handle your retirement savings better than you could on your own accord.

Finally, a goal should be set to limit payments to individuals. Ultimately, even in an “entitlement” program, citizens should only be “entitled” to the money they paid in, adjusted for inflation. Again, this would need to be a long-term goal to be accomplished over a period of 10-20 years in order to treat those in the system fairly. Decreasing caps on the “amount over rightful entitlement” could be set over that time period until the cap was eventually reduced to zero. The time period would be long enough so that individuals set to retire in 10, 20, or 30 years could plan accordingly – and, in combination with the aforementioned changes, they could choose to opt out altogether.

[Agorism]

No way to fix it. We'll wait until there is a lot of pressure on treasuries, and then maybe we'll reform it or not.

UK went bankrupt in the 70-80's. Going bankrupt is the model how countries deal with stuff like this.

[angelatc]

You have to pay money out to those who are already in the system. Just to make it simple, I'd do away with the concept of the lock box, and just fund the damned thing out of the general fund. I'd do away with the earnings cap.

I'd give everybody 39 and younger a lump sum check of everything they've paid in and tell them they better plan their own retirement, people in their 40's would be subjected to a means test before collecting any benefits, and people 50 and older would get the plan they were promised.

Then I'd tell the states that they were free to start any retirement plan they wanted to.

[low preference guy]

The only way to finance SS in the long term is through means testing, i.e., making it a welfare program. If you're old but have savings, you won't get any.

[malkusm]

I want to point out again that Ron Paul's Congressional district has had privatized retirement accounts since 1981 (taking advantage of a loophole that Congress closed in 1983): http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

[cindy25]

its not 6.2%, but 12.4

the employer share is just a facade, as employers count it as part of any compensation.

[Kregisen]

its not 6.2%, but 12.4

the employer share is just a facade, as employers count it as part of any compensation.

Yup....people don't realize this.

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://skreened.com/render-product/h/e/k/hekdauyangemcuieiwux/i-love-soylent-green-food-products-retro-t-shirt.american-apparel-unisex-fitted-tee.grass.w760h760.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

You have to pay money out to those who are already in the system. Just to make it simple, I'd do away with the concept of the lock box, and just fund the damned thing out of the general fund. I'd do away with the earnings cap.

I'd give everybody 39 and younger a lump sum check of everything they've paid in and tell them they better plan their own retirement, people in their 40's would be subjected to a means test before collecting any benefits, and people 50 and older would get the plan they were promised.

Then I'd tell the states that they were free to start any retirement plan they wanted to.

There is no "lock box". If you allow any people currently paying in to opt out, you dramatically increase the shortfalls. I know that Ron Paul proposed letting "young people" opt out while continuing to pay benefits to those who have earned them but this makes the budget problem facing Social Security worse- not better. Same money going out plus less money coming in. It might start to help when those who qualified for benefits start dying off at greater rates than the rate of people opting out but that could take 50 years. In the meantime, your deficit keeps getting bigger.

Raising the retirement age will help but not for several years too.

[aravoth]

How do you propose we reform social security? Increase taxes or decrease benefits?

Abolish it.