Author Topic: The "entitlement" dilemma  (Read 1630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #20 on: March 06, 2011, 09:57:58 AM »
slight increase in the retirement age

Slight increase?  I'd raise it to 75 right now.  It wouldn't fix the problem, but it would push forward the day of reckoning and buy time to come up with a more permanent solution.

Since the average life expectancy has greatly increased since the 1930s, the retirement age should have gradually increased in step with it.  There is nothing magical about the number 65 (or 55 for certain public employees).  Yet we have come to believe that retirement is our God-given right.  It's not.  It's never been the case anytime in human history.

Of course, doing this would expose yet another problem:  our moribund economy isn't creating enough jobs to go around.  That won't change until the government gets its boot off the neck of the free market.




  I'm fine with that but I'll take it on step further. If the government gives me back the money they took from me all these years I'll give up the check they might send me in the future.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

Offline rickl

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1493
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #21 on: March 06, 2011, 10:22:43 AM »
I'm fine with that but I'll take it on step further. If the government gives me back the money they took from me all these years I'll give up the check they might send me in the future.

I already took it a step further than that.  See my comment from yesterday:

Quote
I've been saying for years that I would happily write off the money I've already paid if only they would quit taking it out of my paycheck.

Maybe I didn't explain it well, but what I meant was that I would completely forget about the money I've paid in and not expect it back.  At all. 
We are so far past and beyond the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that the Colonists and Founders experienced and which necessitated the Revolutionary War that they aren’t even visible in the rear-view mirror.
~ Ann Barnhardt

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #22 on: March 06, 2011, 10:53:03 AM »
....Cut off those already dependent on it?  No.  Means test the current recipients and kill it off as soon as possible....

I agree with this. As Pan says, there is no money, and we are broke. If we do nothing, our economy and government will collapse under the weight of debt - Ponzi entitlements being the primary driver of that debt. Even if we act aggressively, by cutting spending and unleashing capital investment, some kind of forced-reality reordering of our entitlement house is imminent.

So assuming that we have to try something as opposed to doing nothing, and assuming that what is required is some level of austerity, the question becomes what level of austerity, and what is politically possible? Paul Ryan has made some proposals along these lines, and it seems the only sane thing to try. We have to find a way to do the best we can to fulfill promises made to those who are currently benefiting from the system, and those who will be in the near future. There should be a means-test for these entitlements, and a slight increase in the retirement age. It will be hard for people to swallow, but it will not devastate those who have the means to support their own retirement.  

Then something needs to be done about younger people who are being told that the SS/Medicare they have been paying into for 20 years (or whatever the number is) is going away, but will be replaced by (whatever - tax-free personal investment accounts, sliding-scale tax incentive for increased retirement savings, Idduno).

If we can get a grip on wasteful government spending, and eliminate retirement entitlements for people under a certain age while continuing them with some kind of a means test for those in or about to enter into the system, then it seems to me that that is about all that can be done. If we still collapse under the weight of behemoth government, we still did what could be done.

The other option is crash and burn, and deal with whatever America becomes in the aftermath. I don't like the prospects of that for my children or grandchild.

Well said.


Offline John Florida

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8290
  • IT'S MY FONT AND I'LL USE IT IF I WANT TO!!
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #23 on: March 06, 2011, 12:14:16 PM »
I'm fine with that but I'll take it on step further. If the government gives me back the money they took from me all these years I'll give up the check they might send me in the future.

I already took it a step further than that.  See my comment from yesterday:

Quote
I've been saying for years that I would happily write off the money I've already paid if only they would quit taking it out of my paycheck.

Maybe I didn't explain it well, but what I meant was that I would completely forget about the money I've paid in and not expect it back.  At all. 



 Sorry Ricki That's not the deal. They took it by force and I want it back. I earned it and they stole it now all I want is my money back.
All men are created equal"
 Filippo Mazzie

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44263
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #24 on: March 06, 2011, 12:58:40 PM »
OK then, looks like this topic is getting quite a work-over! 

Judging just from our little universe it appears a favorable resolution can be difficult to achieve.  Extrapolating to the general population should be just a piece of cake then!   ::bashing::

My two cents -

Just like many states and businesses, we cannot continue life as normal.  We cannot continue to kick the can down the road.  Kicking the can down the road would IMO include raising retirement ages and the like.  Why do we need to buy more time?  They haven't fixed this thing for over 3 decades and the can keeps getting kicked!  Plus, how many people in their 70's are even allowed to work at those ages.  People much younger get phased out right now.  Lucky would be the person is allowed to work as long as they like.  Raise age limits if you want, I just wouldn't do it unless it was part of a permanent solution.

I think a tiered phase-out has to occur.  Everybody over 60 should be left in SS and continue to make contributions to it and have benefits capped to a formula based upon their contributions and expected solvency of the fund.  Everyone 30-60 should have contributions end and have any benefits capped based upon the formula previously mentioned and they can plow whatever share of their remaining income into alternative retirement investments.  Those under 30 should cease contributions and expect no benefits and plan their retirements without government assistance.  Maybe a similar approach to Medicare and Medicaid can work as well.  But simply put, the good times are over and a permanent de-coupling from the government or all, not just some, ALL are screwed!
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

hemm

  • Guest
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #25 on: March 06, 2011, 01:00:36 PM »
I don't expect to see a dime of what I've put in.

I do want it back, every dime.

I do want them to STOP taking it. I could invest it my damn self, as shaky as those prospects are, at the least it would be MY decision and only mine.

If I wanted to stuff it in a mattress or invest it in Apple, in the end its mine.

And the best part is it wouldn't be going to line the pockets of politicians and their interests, unless I wanted it to.

hemm

  • Guest
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #26 on: March 06, 2011, 01:03:40 PM »
OK then, looks like this topic is getting quite a work-over! 

Judging just from our little universe it appears a favorable resolution can be difficult to achieve.  Extrapolating to the general population should be just a piece of cake then!   ::bashing::

My two cents -

Just like many states and businesses, we cannot continue life as normal.  We cannot continue to kick the can down the road.  Kicking the can down the road would IMO include raising retirement ages and the like.  Why do we need to buy more time?  They haven't fixed this thing for over 3 decades and the can keeps getting kicked!  Plus, how many people in their 70's are even allowed to work at those ages.  People much younger get phased out right now.  Lucky would be the person is allowed to work as long as they like.  Raise age limits if you want, I just wouldn't do it unless it was part of a permanent solution.

I think a tiered phase-out has to occur.  Everybody over 60 should be left in SS and continue to make contributions to it and have benefits capped to a formula based upon their contributions and expected solvency of the fund.  Everyone 30-60 should have contributions end and have any benefits capped based upon the formula previously mentioned and they can plow whatever share of their remaining income into alternative retirement investments.  Those under 30 should cease contributions and expect no benefits and plan their retirements without government assistance.  Maybe a similar approach to Medicare and Medicaid can work as well.  But simply put, the good times are over and a permanent de-coupling from the government or all, not just some, ALL are screwed!

a true "gird your loins" happening to be sure.

I agree, SOMETHING must change. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime as long as pol's are involved, and their involvement is intimate in a very disgusting way.......... ::angry::

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 44263
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #27 on: March 06, 2011, 01:07:55 PM »
OK then, looks like this topic is getting quite a work-over! 

Judging just from our little universe it appears a favorable resolution can be difficult to achieve.  Extrapolating to the general population should be just a piece of cake then!   ::bashing::

My two cents -

Just like many states and businesses, we cannot continue life as normal.  We cannot continue to kick the can down the road.  Kicking the can down the road would IMO include raising retirement ages and the like.  Why do we need to buy more time?  They haven't fixed this thing for over 3 decades and the can keeps getting kicked!  Plus, how many people in their 70's are even allowed to work at those ages.  People much younger get phased out right now.  Lucky would be the person is allowed to work as long as they like.  Raise age limits if you want, I just wouldn't do it unless it was part of a permanent solution.

I think a tiered phase-out has to occur.  Everybody over 60 should be left in SS and continue to make contributions to it and have benefits capped to a formula based upon their contributions and expected solvency of the fund.  Everyone 30-60 should have contributions end and have any benefits capped based upon the formula previously mentioned and they can plow whatever share of their remaining income into alternative retirement investments.  Those under 30 should cease contributions and expect no benefits and plan their retirements without government assistance.  Maybe a similar approach to Medicare and Medicaid can work as well.  But simply put, the good times are over and a permanent de-coupling from the government or all, not just some, ALL are screwed!

a true "gird your loins" happening to be sure.

I agree, SOMETHING must change. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime as long as pol's are involved, and their involvement is intimate in a very disgusting way.......... ::angry::

History appears to favor your assessment, but then if we are condemned to inaction, that in itself is an action, and one that can only lead to collapse.

Not...looking...forward...to...that!

 ::gaah::   ::cussing::
Irrumabo!  GOP? - Nope. No more. They made their bed, now let them die in it.*
* © Libertas (H/T Glock32)

hemm

  • Guest
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #28 on: March 06, 2011, 01:15:50 PM »
OK then, looks like this topic is getting quite a work-over! 

Judging just from our little universe it appears a favorable resolution can be difficult to achieve.  Extrapolating to the general population should be just a piece of cake then!   ::bashing::

My two cents -

Just like many states and businesses, we cannot continue life as normal.  We cannot continue to kick the can down the road.  Kicking the can down the road would IMO include raising retirement ages and the like.  Why do we need to buy more time?  They haven't fixed this thing for over 3 decades and the can keeps getting kicked!  Plus, how many people in their 70's are even allowed to work at those ages.  People much younger get phased out right now.  Lucky would be the person is allowed to work as long as they like.  Raise age limits if you want, I just wouldn't do it unless it was part of a permanent solution.

I think a tiered phase-out has to occur.  Everybody over 60 should be left in SS and continue to make contributions to it and have benefits capped to a formula based upon their contributions and expected solvency of the fund.  Everyone 30-60 should have contributions end and have any benefits capped based upon the formula previously mentioned and they can plow whatever share of their remaining income into alternative retirement investments.  Those under 30 should cease contributions and expect no benefits and plan their retirements without government assistance.  Maybe a similar approach to Medicare and Medicaid can work as well.  But simply put, the good times are over and a permanent de-coupling from the government or all, not just some, ALL are screwed!

a true "gird your loins" happening to be sure.

I agree, SOMETHING must change. I don't think I will see it in my lifetime as long as pol's are involved, and their involvement is intimate in a very disgusting way.......... ::angry::

History appears to favor your assessment, but then if we are condemned to inaction, that in itself is an action, and one that can only lead to collapse.

Not...looking...forward...to...that!

 ::gaah::   ::cussing::

I know what you mean.

We need a Reaganesque leader in the worst way..........will he/she be in time is all that remains to be seen, something has to give.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2011, 01:30:53 PM »
I don't have faith in the intellectual capacity of the electorate to solve this politically. Even the reasonably intelligent are infected with expectations of instant gratification and comfortable living, and will balk at austerity measures. These entitlement programs have been enormously popular from the very beginning. Even now, in the face of enormous debt and even bigger future liabilities in excess of $100 TRILLION, people still poll overwhelmingly against changes to SS. That may be a victory in the court of public opinion, but it doesn't change the reality that these programs are dragging us down to fiscal ruin. Further, it points a definite finger at the real source of the problem: our idiot fellow citizens. Our civilization has done an impressive job of artificially insulating idiots from the forces of reality, but ultimately nature will settle the account.

We keep hearing warnings about kicking the can down the road, and how that will only make the problem that much more painful to deal with when it finally happens. The thing is, we're already near the end of that road, so the gloomy scenario suggested by that warning is actually almost upon us. This was a warning that should have been sounded 30 years ago, or longer. There were voices, but they were laughed down as alarmists.

Nobody likes the prospects of Crash & Burn, but it may be the only thing that actually "fixes" things. You keep giving people the power to do so in an ordered fashion, and they just keep deciding to ignore the problem.
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

charlesoakwood

  • Guest
Re: The "entitlement" dilemma
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2011, 02:36:44 PM »
Quote
G32:
These entitlement programs have been enormously popular from the very beginning. Even now, in the face of enormous debt and even bigger future liabilities in excess of $100 TRILLION, people still poll overwhelmingly against changes to SS.


I'd like to see a breakdown of those polls (SS only) and who did them.
It's difficult to imagine a 45 or so yr old, (or whatever the reasonable cutoff age that one could do better on the market - I think Ryan's is 50 or 52) - saying if given the option they would prefer to keep SS.  That opinion is reason enough to pull their voter registration.  

« Last Edit: March 06, 2011, 02:40:06 PM by Charles Oakwood »