Are there even enough rich people in the US to skew the average that far upwards?
This is a terrible idea. Life expectancy has been increasing for wealthy people, not for the poor that Social Security is designed to help. Why would you cut poor people's benefits because rich people are living longer? I thought you were all about helping the poor?
Of course, but there's no way to do it except for someone to eventually ignore politics.
Also, I'd make voluntary surrender an option. Anyone at anytime can surrender their contributions to date and any benefits in exchange for not contributing anymore in the future.
You are dumb if you think eliminating social security for those who save otherwise is going to bring that back.
Are there even enough rich people in the US to skew the average that far upwards?
I linked a study done by the SSA a few years ago. Life expectancy increases over the last 40 years have gone almost entirely to those in the upper 50% of the income distribution scale. They remain essentially unchanged for the poor.
So perhaps "rich" isn't exactly the word we're looking for in the upper half, but the point still stands that when you increase the retirement age you're punishing the poor because the wealthier half of the country is living longer.
Lol, rich is pretty darn far away from the word you're looking for if you are talking about half of the population. And frankly that trend makes perfect sense, the more money you have then the better access you have to medical services. Add that to the numerous studies that I have seen that show poorer people tend to do more self destructive things (smoke, heavy drinking, drugs) and it's pretty cut and dry why that is the case. I can't believe they needed a study to figure that out.
IIRC black people (or maybe just men) statistically won't live long enough to ever collect SS or at least not very much of it. Should we lower the SS age for black folk? Should smokers get SS at a lower age too, after all they did pay into the system?
The upper half of the country will always receive/have better access to better care. That's just the way the world works, I'd bet even in socialized countries to a large extent. Yet we still have to tie SS somehow to increased life expectancy or else the numbers will continue to get worse over time.
Are there even enough rich people in the US to skew the average that far upwards?
"Why he is doing this, is pretty simple. People love it (even 6 in 10 conservatives). It polls through the roof. And anyone telling you anything different is trying to sell you something, probably private accounts on Wall Street that would have been blown up with the stock market crash in 2008."
And anything you had in the market in 2008 has since rebounded and much much more. I'd much rather have SS partially privatized over the course of my 40 working years then the way it is structured now.
The people that protest privatization don't understand investing at all.
I think the reason people come down with cancer and heart disease is because they become sedentary.
I linked a study done by the SSA a few years ago. Life expectancy increases over the last 40 years have gone almost entirely to those in the upper 50% of the income distribution scale. They remain essentially unchanged for the poor.
So perhaps "rich" isn't exactly the word we're looking for in the upper half, but the point still stands that when you increase the retirement age you're punishing the poor because the wealthier half of the country is living longer.
Fine with me, what you're advocating basically means the rich get to collect Social Security for longer in comparison the poor, further increasing their total return past the breakeven point of their capped contributions. Funded in large part by retained funds for the poor who never make it to retirement age. Thanks for the reverse Robin Hood.
It's always interesting to see what policies your spite-based approach to public policy leads you to endorse, haha.
But partial privatization weakens the system for those who are collecting, or near collecting, benefits under the old system. And they both vote and outnumber the rest of you.
How? Seriously. Partially privatizing has always meant that part of the tax still goes in the SS trust. You structure it in such a way that the younger generation is still contributing a small portion to traditional fund. Over two or three generations everyone will be structured into that partially privatized system. They will get a higher rate of return and the gov't won't be dependent on any surpluses from them.
Lastly, it would never be fully privatized as we have to support those on SS benefits that are disabled early in life and wouldn't have the opportunity to have a 40 year working career, etc.
you cannot substantiate that claim.......Easy, make it voluntary as it was originally supposed to be.
How? Seriously. Partially privatizing has always meant that part of the tax still goes in the SS trust. You structure it in such a way that the younger generation is still contributing a small portion to traditional fund. Over two or three generations everyone will be structured into that partially privatized system. They will get a higher rate of return and the gov't won't be dependent on any surpluses from them.
Lastly, it would never be fully privatized as we have to support those on SS benefits that are disabled early in life and wouldn't have the opportunity to have a 40 year working career, etc.
I don't understand why so many want privatization. One of the first rules of investing is diversification. Social security is a guaranteed return of at least 4% with a max of 6.5% depending on your situation. Thats great for a low risk investment. It beats bonds.
It's neither an investment nor guarantee. Only someone very naive would make that claim about an account they have literally no ownership interest in. The "returns" are completely dependent upon the whims of a politician, the "principal" could be taken away by those same politicians at any time, and the entity administering the account also provides "regulatory oversight." What could possibly go wrong with all that?
It's neither an investment nor guarantee. Only someone very naive would make that claim about an account they have literally no ownership interest in. The "returns" are completely dependent upon the whims of a politician, the "principal" could be taken away by those same politicians at any time, and the entity administering the account also provides "regulatory oversight." What could possibly go wrong with all that?
I don't understand why so many want privatization. One of the first rules of investing is diversification. Social security is a guaranteed return of at least 4% with a max of 6.5% depending on your situation. Thats great for a low risk investment. It beats bonds.
People who want privatization tend not to think about 1.) the havoc it would wreck with market valuations and 2.) what we would do in case of another crash. Are we going to let old people die in the street? Probably not, we will bail them out... which basically eliminates the whole point to begin with.
So back to "you're too stupid to manage your own retirement and we literally trust a politician to do a better job of it than you."