There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts

This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.

The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed. At the time it was a better idea when people didn't live so long and would therefore not receive very many years of Social Security payout, but as time and Medical Advances went on, the years of Payment grew longer. So now Social Security has been something that the Nation has come to Depend on (which I must say is also implied in the video). To take it away would be a problem, but to throw more money at it would be a problem as well. Taking it away would create a scenario where those that had payed for it All or a Part of their Lives lose the Promised Benefit, and those who transitioned to the lifestyle of social security are Suddenly Forced to change their lifestyle of something they have come to Depend on. Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something. The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security, the problem is that as more people enter social security for longer periods of time, the payout Required by the government Grows higher and higher meaning that more money has to be taken out of other areas of funding in order to maintain status quo.

The other type of option is to change the requirements of social security. Raising the age is quite plausible as it Reduces the length and to a certain extent, the number of people needing it (They die before they can get to the required age). The problem with that is, well one they can die before they can get to the required age and they have to work for longer periods of time at an age that may or may not be (I do not know this part) as effective. The deaths can at least be Balanced since the average age is increasing, there are always deaths before reaching even the earlier ages so this becomes Less of a factor. But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.

Why does this issue sound familiar ... oh, right: same discussion over here, same problems, same "solutions", same people.

Now, I apologize in advance if I got some facts wrong. It's hard enough to keep track of things over here, I only losely follow the situation in the US every now and then out of curiosity.

Social security in the US is still running a vast surplus (projected at $70-$80 billion in 2010), so there's no immediate need to "fix" things. The fact that benefits exceed payrol tax income by some $41 billion is a warning sign that the economy is seriously in the shitter. Still, people use the current status to extrapolate the situation in years to come. One recent projection said that by 2037, social security won't be able to pay more than 75% of scheduled benefits. And as a solution, they suggest the increase of the entry age to 70 years - which is supposedly equal to a 15% cut, I haven't double-checked it.

So, in order to avoid a possible 25% cut based on flawed data (no changes to current situation), they suggest a 15% cut, just in case. The same logic they use over here. Wasn't social security "doomed" in 1982 before the Greenspan Commission secured its finances for some 50 years (aka 2030+)? So why the ruckus? Governments don't do shit until shit absolutely needs to be done - which in this case is still a decade or two away.

If they insist on better financing now, how about this: raise the fucking wage base. Or you might as well lift the bloody cap alltogether and lower the rate in return. $106,800 this year is a joke - just like the cap in our social security system.

*quality
(edit) whoops! someone do me a solid

JiggaJonson cannot award a quality point for this post because JiggaJonson does not have enough Power Points - ignoring quality request by JiggaJonson. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

people are not living longer, infant mortality is just down. tell the waitress with a hip replacement to work another five years. Tell her in person.

the whole idea of social security is that you depend on it. jesus christ.

>> ^aimpoint:

To take it away would be a problem, but to throw more money at it would be a problem as well. Taking it away would create a scenario where those that had payed for it All or a Part of their Lives lose the Promised Benefit, and those who transitioned to the lifestyle of social security are Suddenly Forced to change their lifestyle of something they have come to Depend on. Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something. The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security, the problem is that as more people enter social security for longer periods of time, the payout Required by the government Grows higher and higher meaning that more money has to be taken out of other areas of funding in order to maintain status quo.


you could call this comment, "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"
Like social security is some kind of unknown monster. NO!
Insurance runs on statistics, which in large groups are VERY predictable. We know these things to decimal places. Social security is run on facts and figures. The fund will be good until 2037, which is when a small deficit is predicted. One problem is that social security fund is paid less interest than treasury bonds. Why not fix that?

>> ^aimpoint:

There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts
This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.

Umm, it's not guilt by association. If the topic you want to discuss is the deficit, the right says "cut Social Security and Medicare" while the left says "let the Bush tax cuts expire" to which the right says "taxes can't be raised, even if the tax cuts we passed exploded the deficit, not Social Security!"

That literally is a sinister plot to steal from the poor and give it to the rich. Cut taxes on the rich, and create a huge budget deficit, and then propose fixing the budget problems by cutting benefits to the lower and middle classes.

>> ^aimpoint:
The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed.

Wrong and wrong.


>> ^aimpoint:

Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something.

The price of asphalt has doubled in recent years. Taxes will likely have to go up to continue maintaining roads. That's not an added tax with "no benefit", that's the cost of something that people depend on going up.

Perhaps you're in the camp that thinks we should abandon paved roads?

>> ^aimpoint:

The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security,

Like marinara said, not until 2037 would this be required. The social security trust fund has plenty of money in it, and social security is still running a net surplus, without changing anything.

Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax essentially fixes the entire projected budget shortfall -- the trust fund might run out just short of the end of the 21st century, assuming our projections about the economy 80+ years in the future are anywhere near correct (and that's a huge assumption).

>> ^aimpoint:
But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.


This is really the key issue with raising retirement ages into the 70's. Talking with people I work with, most of them find that headhunters and recruiters stop approaching them the second they hit 50. I kinda can't imagine what kinds of hoops someone would have to jump through to get a new job at 68 or so.

Back when people kept the same job for their entire working lifetime, maybe raising the retirement age made sense, especially with real honest to god company pensions still being around. Nowadays, companies treat their employees as disposable, and it's simply expected that people will change jobs every couple of years or so.

I'm kinda afraid of what the job market will look like when I hit 50, I can't even imagine having to compete against 30 year-olds for jobs when I'm nearly 70.

*quality because my dad and my family are counting on social security

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

Ahh, Netrunner you have clarified that it does indeed seem that my knowledge is quite an antiquatedly incorrect thought process. Well the statistics from the New York Times definitely seems to make more sense of it all, and no I don't think we should abandon paved roads.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aimpoint:
There is something that deeply disturbs me about this
There are 2 issues that have been brought up, Social Security and Extending the Bush Tax Cuts
This video implies a guilt by association by associating the Social Security problems with the Bush Tax Cuts. The Bush Tax Cuts is an easy stab at the Republicans, but the video is tying it together with Social Security to imply something more sinister like a "Rich stealing from the poor" scenario.
Umm, it's not guilt by association. If the topic you want to discuss is the deficit, the right says "cut Social Security and Medicare" while the left says "let the Bush tax cuts expire" to which the right says "taxes can't be raised, even if the tax cuts we passed exploded the deficit, not Social Security!"
That literally is a sinister plot to steal from the poor and give it to the rich. Cut taxes on the rich, and create a huge budget deficit, and then propose fixing the budget problems by cutting benefits to the lower and middle classes.
>> ^aimpoint:
The problem with Social Security is that people live longer, not something that was taken into account when it was first passed.
Wrong and wrong.

>> ^aimpoint:
Putting more money into it creates a situation where a larger share of money per paycheck will be required keep another program at status quo. Essentially its an added tax with No Benefit, say for if its not payed then money will be needed from other programs so if you don't pay up someone is gonna lose something.
The price of asphalt has doubled in recent years. Taxes will likely have to go up to continue maintaining roads. That's not an added tax with "no benefit", that's the cost of something that people depend on going up.
Perhaps you're in the camp that thinks we should abandon paved roads?
>> ^aimpoint:
The other situation involves Taking more money from Elsewhere and putting it into social security,
Like marinara said, not until 2037 would this be required. The social security trust fund has plenty of money in it, and social security is still running a net surplus, without changing anything.
Eliminating the cap on the payroll tax essentially fixes the entire projected budget shortfall -- the trust fund might run out just short of the end of the 21st century, assuming our projections about the economy 80+ years in the future are anywhere near correct (and that's a huge assumption).
>> ^aimpoint:
But the effectiveness of working 70 year-olds is unknown to me.

This is really the key issue with raising retirement ages into the 70's. Talking with people I work with, most of them find that headhunters and recruiters stop approaching them the second they hit 50. I kinda can't imagine what kinds of hoops someone would have to jump through to get a new job at 68 or so.
Back when people kept the same job for their entire working lifetime, maybe raising the retirement age made sense, especially with real honest to god company pensions still being around. Nowadays, companies treat their employees as disposable, and it's simply expected that people will change jobs every couple of years or so.
I'm kinda afraid of what the job market will look like when I hit 50, I can't even imagine having to compete against 30 year-olds for jobs when I'm nearly 70.

This video is such Bull.

There is no money left to fund SS. Its been broke for years. If you want this program at 62 ,65 or 67 then cut other programs and fund this. The days of borrowing has to end. We are borrowing from our grand children and that is totally wrong. How selfish. If you haven't figured out that you will be getting squat from Uncle Sam when you retire that you are an idiot.


Define rich? If you make more that 160K/yr the you are part of the top 5%.
The top 5% pay 53% of all income tax.. Is that fair? While if you make 32K then you are part of the top 50%. The top 50% pay 96% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% make less than 32k/yr and pay less than 3% of all Federal taxes.

Looks like the rich are paying a shitload more than anyone else. Quit bitching about the rich. Bitch at the government to un fund some programs and fund programs that you care really care about.

>> ^bobknight33:

This video is such Bull.
There is no money left to fund SS. Its been broke for years.

Absolutely and completely false. I'd link you the exact projections from the CBO, but their website seems to be down at the moment. Instead I'll send you here, I'd recommend reading all 10 facts, but fact #10 directly addresses Social Security's solvency.

Edit: Here's a full article on Social Security's long-term budget.

>> ^bobknight33:
If you want this program at 62 ,65 or 67 then cut other programs and fund this.

No, let's just make the tax that pays for it completely flat -- specifically, get the people making more than $106,800/yr to pay the same 6.2% the rest of us, instead of less.

>> ^bobknight33:
The days of borrowing has to end. We are borrowing from our grand children and that is totally wrong. How selfish.

I agree, Bush's tax cuts were stealing from our children, to give to the top 1%. Let's end 'em! Also theft from our children: Bush's Medicare Part D benefit, and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thankfully you have Obama's health care reform, which is the biggest deficit-reducing legislation passed in my lifetime, not that you would know that.

>> ^bobknight33:
Define rich? If you make more that 160K/yr the you are part of the top 5%.
The top 5% pay 53% of all income tax.. Is that fair? While if you make 32K then you are part of the top 50%. The top 50% pay 96% of all income tax.
The bottom 50% make less than 32k/yr and pay less than 3% of all Federal taxes.

You need to cite a source. The top 5% paying 53% sounds right, and it also sounds a bit low to me! 32K being top 50% sounds pretty wrong though. If that's true, we've got an even bigger income inequality problem than I ever imagined. Time to cut taxes for the lower ends, and raise it at the higher end!

>> ^bobknight33:
Looks like the rich are paying a shitload more than anyone else. Quit bitching about the rich. Bitch at the government to un fund some programs and fund programs that you care really care about.


So basically you agree with the policy this video attributes to Republicans. Cutting taxes on the rich is so important that you think assistance to the poor and elderly must be cut.

Honestly, I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror.

Downvote for implying that they want to literally take money from the SS fund and hand it over to rich
people.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Downvote for implying that they want to literally take money from the SS fund and hand it over to rich
people.


They're just doing it in reverse order.

Step 1: Have the government borrow a bunch of money, and give it to rich people
Step 2: Propose fixing the government's debt problem by taking money away from SS

Just because they gave the money to the rich before they started raiding SS doesn't change much.