swgohome.com

So, was ditzing around today and looking at stuff. Apparently full retirement age in our country is 67 for people born after 1960. This is still more or less the same age that was initially dictated when it was first enacted in the 60s. The eligibility age has risen by two years in the time since then. In comparison, our life expectancy has risen 9 years to an average of 75 years for men and roughly 80 for women. This seems rather out of place, as do many social programs that were enacted decades ago. For whatever reason, pretty much none of our legislation is ever tied to predictable increases. Even a simple algorithm that raised the age by half a year for every increased year of life expectancy, with a double increase for every five years of increased life expectancy. Even that's being incredibly generous. When the retirement law went into effect the average life expectancy for men was 66-67 and the retirement age was 65. However, I do feel like that's still pretty fair since life expectancy isn't the most accurate numbers to stick by because it also takes into effect people who die far earlier than the retirement age. A more accurate method, imo, would be to take the life expectancy of those who reach the retirement age ot something close to that age.

As an example, raising the retirement age to 70 would save some 120 billion dollars over the next decade. However, we also have to weigh the negatives of something such as this. In a struggling job market, this means positions would be filled longer than they already are. Creating more unemployment. Frankly I think that such a reform also needs to come with an educational, cultural, and systematic change. Currently many people view retirement benefits as a main stream of income when it shouldn't come out to anything more than a supplement. There isn't a culture of saving and investing in the main body of the populace and I feel that is due to a lack of general financial literacy as the result of a lack of education during primary schooling.

One of the sources I used: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42683

My opinion? Social security, welfare, and disability are all fumbling steps toward a single answer - Guaranteed Minimum Income.

Mandy is right. I personally would hate working to 70 but it will happen whether we like it or not (or social security will simply fail). The only solutions to social security is applying difficult medicine:

-raising the retirement age
-raising taxes

and well, there isn't anything else that can be done besides these two... these are the only options on the table.The reason it is failing is that financial regulation for insurance doesn't apply for social security. Thus, payments coming in are much lower than the money being disbursed to retirees. In private insurance, by law the companies are required to set a fixed percentage as savings, but social security doesn't have to obey that law. So, when the social security trust fund runs out of money, they will reduce payments and increase taxes significantly.

Now, in worst case scenario, if nothing is done, payments to retirees will slowly be diminished every year. There will always be payment, but smaller and smaller.

Other options available (that don't work):
- reform SS so people can opt out and buy private insurance: the problem with this is that social security would cease to be social. Private insurance will always pay more than social security because in SS, part of everyone's payment is redistributed to those who contributed less (due to poverty). If people can opt out, it will go broke as everyone will go to the market for the higher paying private insurance... and then the poor people who depended on SS will not get much as the few contributions they made will not be enough to maintain a decent payment (and in a way, causing the side effect of more inequality).
-eliminate SS: then the effect will be that elderly people in the U.S will be very poor. And I don't understand why anyone would want this option to happen anyway. Inequality in the U.S would rise, millions of elderly wouldn't have any funds to face the most difficult stage of life (being poor, old, and crapping your pants because you can't stand up).

As someone who started paying into the system at a very young age and has only used any social services ONCE (WIC when the hubs was between contracts) I don't think Disability or Social Security should attacked in the same way as welfare. I think we need to start making people prove that they have paid into the system. I don't feel its an entitlement if you've been paying in and have EARNED it.. That's why we get statements every so often from social security that you have EARNED so many "credits" and that when you have a certain amount of credits you have earned the RIGHT to claim disability if you're hurt or social security if you are of age.

The Entitlements we need to eliminate are those who cross the border, go to DHS and walk out with more benefits than my husband earns in a week (Hubs is pulling in 4 digits a week.) No prior job, no paying into the system, just granted to them. This also goes for the zip heads (like my white cousin) who pop out baby after baby to keep getting benefits so she can afford for her boyfriend to pay for their zip head habits...

What you're talking about is privatizing it, if I understand you correctly. Which is something I completely agree with.

However, you're claim of "border crossers" having a negative impact on the gross situation seems to be incredibly fraudulent on a first glance when applying critical thought. Our total population is 313 million. The illegal immigrant population is estimated at roughly 12 million (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/a ... ed-states/). This means they're a total of about 4% of our population and are 5% of our workforce. Then combine this small fraction of people with the knowledge that the vast, vast, vastttt majority are very young with most ranging between 15-35. (http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/14/i ... teristics/). This statistically implies that they could in no way shape or form affect the system in such an egregious manner to cause it serious harm. While they most certainly bring a heavier load on local governments, for nation wide services they would at worst be a small drain on it. Again, as I said in the other topic, this is a self-defeating argument. How can you expect them to not drain them when they have no mechanism to pay into it due to outdated immigration laws?

However, after something is done about that round robin problem I completely support the requirements for full documentation for all social services as well as drug testing. Drug testing would have to be coupled with potential treatment options though, imo. Otherwise you're not really helping that situation in any case. You would just be preparing them for more self-failure. However, if the options of citizenship are open to you, drug treatment is open to you, and you refuse to do either of those things in order to get benefits then you can just rot in a dark corner, since at that point you're not helping yourself.