The Inconsistency in the Tea Party

[scooterbug44]

I thought there was already a plan in place to slowly reduce the age at which you can get full benefits.

Partial benefits starts at 62, but full is slowly being increased from 65-67.

Why can't we just tweak that a little more? A month or 2 here and there adds up fast.

 

[beachFool]

Solving SS without raising taxes

I wouldn't equate raising taxes with adjusting the system for rising life expectancies. These are two entirely different concepts. Benefits levels should also continue to be based on what you contribute.

I would also like to see ss funds separated from general revenue and placed in individual accounts. (Which the government is free to regulate.) People should be able to control what they have in savings. The fact that we can't do this today is criminal.

Raising the retirement age more than a year or two places a huge burden on teachers, sales clerks, construction workers, miners, factory workers because the body wears out.

SS is ALREADY mean-tested. Workers on the higher end of lifetime earnings receive a lower benefit relative to their contribution when compared with workers who have lower lifetime earnings.

I have yet to see any study where means testing would reduce costs.

Plus I disagree with means testing. Take a small business owner, who paid both sides of SS on his earnings and contributed for employees and because of his hard-work and good fortune he gets cut off SS?

The best scenario for solving the SS funding is to gradually (over thirty years) let the full retirement age increase to 69, recompute how COLAs are computed and scale back the benefit for the top 70% of recipients.

No taxes are raised and everyone chips in except those at lower end. Most of the solutions being proposed dump the burden on our children.

For the report (free download) Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future

 

[30ashopper]

Raising the retirement age more than a year or two places a huge burden on teachers, sales clerks, construction workers, miners, factory workers because the body wears out.

SS is ALREADY mean-tested. Workers on the higher end of lifetime earnings receive a lower benefit relative to their contribution when compared with workers who have lower lifetime earnings.

I have yet to see any study where means testing would reduce costs.

Plus I disagree with means testing. Take a small business owner, who paid both sides of SS on his earnings and contributed for employees and because of his hard-work and good fortune he gets cut off SS?

The best scenario for solving the SS funding is to gradually (over thirty years) let the full retirement age increase to 69, recompute how COLAs are computed and scale back the benefit for the top 70% of recipients.

No taxes are raised and everyone chips in except those at lower end. Most of the solutions being proposed dump the burden on our children.

For the report (free download) Choosing the Nation's Fiscal Future

I guess we'll have to agree to agree?

 

[poppy]

I thought there was already a plan in place to slowly reduce the age at which you can get full benefits.

Partial benefits starts at 62, but full is slowly being increased from 65-67.

Why can't we just tweak that a little more? A month or 2 here and there adds up fast.

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

 

[idlewind]

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

You are trading a short-term liability (unemployment insurance) for a long tem liability( social Security.) That is best case. The other part is that Social Security is not income replacement for most workers so they will still need a job to supplement the SS income. So the effect on the unemployment rate would not be that great and the net result is a flood of new red ink.

 

[Andy A]

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

What I am citing, and what so many refuse to accept, is what I have learned personally over the years. It is often amazing to me how little one's personal results count on this board. I may be wrong but I see these personal episodes and their results as indicative of our country as a whole I do not immediately accept organizations, pundits or experts as ultimate and absolute on either the right or the left. I am sorry you do not approve of my method of making decisions. It has held me in good stead for many years, and yes, in many cases it is a result of a "gut feeling" and while occasionally wrong more often right. Therefore, I will continue to post what I feel, have learned, read and experienced. You are certainly under no obligation to accept it, as you are well aware.

 

[scooterbug44]

What would happen if we tweaked it in the opposite direction and lower the retirement age? Those who are tired, worn out and wanting to leave the work force will be able to allowing younger people wanting to work the chance to replace them. I have no idea what the pros and cons are to this but my simple mind is looking at the increase in SS payouts could be offset somewhat by the decrease in payments to the unemployed.

Social Security and retirement are 2 very different things - most of the retired/old people I know retire (or don't) on their own financial schedule (and before full SS benefits kick in).

Usually this is because they have put in a certain number of years to be eligible, own the company, or are offered an early retirement as part of a corporate merger/buyout.

And Social Security is only supposed to be a safety net that provides a minimal living stipend - less than 25% of one's retirement income.

Unemployment is paid by the state and is funded by employers, Social Security is paid by the Federal government and is funded by employee contributions, so they don't balance each other out.

 

[Geo]

Andy,

Huh?

Your hard work, self reliance, the fact that you have lived below your means and saved, etc. etc. have served you well. But I'm not talking about your virtues. I'm talking about discussion/debate of issues.

During our conversation about fixing our country one side said they want to end tax cuts for the wealthiest. You made your case to the contrary by saying that the top 5% pay 95% of our taxes "or close to it".

Buzz pointed out that it is actually 60% which isn't close at all.

Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, retracting your inaccurate support for your point and reloading-

You:

• Called Buzz out for the "antic" of using your "generalization" against you
• Gave those of us concerned with "absolute accuracy" a sarcastic fauxpoligy
• Stated that you don't accept his "experts" and accused him of not accepting yours (but you didn't cite any experts)
• Lumped your "facts" (which you acknowledged weren't based on research) and his together as being from "unreliable sources"
• Stated that anyone who doesn't think all sources are unreliable because they have an agenda just hasn't lived long enough yet

So I call you on this and you respond with-

What I am citing, and what so many refuse to accept, is what I have learned personally over the years. It is often amazing to me how little one's personal results count on this board. I may be wrong but I see these personal episodes and their results as indicative of our country as a whole I do not immediately accept organizations, pundits or experts as ultimate and absolute on either the right or the left. I am sorry you do not approve of my method of making decisions. It has held me in good stead for many years, and yes, in many cases it is a result of a "gut feeling" and while occasionally wrong more often right. Therefore, I will continue to post what I feel, have learned, read and experienced. You are certainly under no obligation to accept it, as you are well aware.

 

[Jdarg]

Andy,

Huh?

Your hard work, self reliance, the fact that you have lived below your means and saved, etc. etc. have served you well. But I'm talking about your virtues. I'm talking about discussion/debate of issues.

During our conversation about fixing our country one side said they want to end tax cuts for the wealthiest. You made your case to the contrary by saying that the top 5% pay 95% of our taxes "or close to it".

Buzz pointed out that it is actually 60% which isn't close at all.

Rather than acknowledging that you were wrong, retracting your inaccurate support for your point and reloading-

You:

• Called Buzz out for the "antic" of using your "generalization" against you
• Gave those of us concerned with "absolute accuracy" a sarcastic fauxpoligy
• Stated that you don't accept his "experts" and accused him of not accepting yours (but you didn't cite any experts)
• Lumped your "facts" (which you acknowledged weren't based on research) and his together as being from "unreliable sources"
• Stated that anyone who doesn't think all sources are unreliable because they have an agenda just hasn't lived long enough yet

So I call you on this and you respond with-

I was getting ready to comment to, but you beat me to it. Andy, I would be a lot more interested in listening to what you had to say if you didn't throw a jab (or 5) in every post. People who disagree with you might be correct, even though they have not lived as long as you. Discounting people who have factual sources is ridiculous. Their opinion is just as valid and important as yours- more so in a discussion if they can back up what they say.

The civility in discourse rules that you demand from the left side of the discussions never seem to apply to you. You have the opportunity to lead by example!

 

[Matt J]

Don't hold your breath Geo, the geezer of blue mountain has spoken and you'll have to live with it. I'm constantly bashed by him when I simply don't agree with him or see it his way. I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I'm pretty sure he's just a tea party lemming hell bent on taking this country over the cliff.