There's no steering anything. You are not paying for yourself, you are paying for current retirees on the hopes that there will be enough people to pay for your. Current retirees are not getting enough from that, so they are accumulating debt to pay themselves even more, hence the article.
Since the population pyramid has not worked that way, you will simply have a worse time, and younger people even worse, unless you can convince the people after to take on even more debt.
"Children are the retirement plan" has been true all along, only obfuscated. It would have been more sensible if social security payouts were contingent on how much tax revenue your children made, rather than the current model.
>Since the population pyramid has not worked that way, you will simply have a worse time, and younger people even worse, unless you can convince the people after to take on even more debt.
Why is "just pay current recipients enough to get them to STFU and phase out the program" not an option?
It's not like anyone under 60 didn't at least have some expectation SS might go tits up. Younger genx on down have been raised to expect nothing so they won't be too sad. They'll be happy to stop paying if anything.
>gen Xers would fight it tooth and nail, you underestimate.
I think that's filter bubble speaking. People who aren't ideologically in favor of entitlements would likely be mildly for or against. People who are ideologically against entitlements would consider it a good thing.
Soon-to-be recipients stand to lose out on tens of thousands of dollars from SS cuts. I think this would skew the normal distribution of ideological views you are imagining far more than you think.
Don’t think this is “filter bubble” as I don’t interact with many Gen Xers and the ones I do likely skew skeptical of SS.
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other.
Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement.
It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-term. If it were pitched as an additional tax and spend welfare program it’d have never gotten off the ground to begin with.
Without your dollars going in today, current retirees would not be receiving meaningful benefits - as their contributions largely went towards those retired while they were working. The whole idea is more of a social contract between generations than anything else.
I understand the perspective and I don't disagree with it, but the problem that spawned social security doesn't go away. It takes a crushing amount of time and money to take care of your aging parents, unless we go down a very dark route, and many elderly are abandoned and it becomes a societal mess.
Some approaches I was mulling over:
1. The easiest way is to dilute SS without pushing the years down even further is to remove the required COLA adjustments.
It's probably the easiest; also the least imaginative; and may be too slow.
2. The other is what the other poster mentioned: Real social security really comes down to your kids; and this is what I think should be the basis for a "new deal".
This has to be done very carefully--I can see so many ways this can be abused--but longer-term I think giving some sort of tax break or even tax credit--based on the social security numbers of the parents--allocated by the parent(s).
For the family that can't do it full-time, they can then use that credit or offset to hire some help.
Thoughts?
Edit: I went through this but with hired help. It was both necessary and awful; and I wish I had an option to help my parents directly full-time, but I didn't have the means at the time (I suppose I still don't).
Edit 2: Fixing social security alone doesn't address the wider fiscal problem. It's almost a drop in the bucket. Healthcare is the problem.
The American elderly are in 2025 the richest generation to have ever existed in human history. Elder poverty can be solved with a comparably much smaller transfer scheme than what we have crafted.
It’s a tax. You could describe any beneficiaries of a tax in the same manner; we’re paying taxes to at least partially cover group X - homeless, scientists, military, retirees, veterans, etc.
There’s no debt being paid; money is simply taken from Peter, and money is simply given to Paul.
It’s not a retirement program, it’s retirement subsidization.
I don't think I'm willing to grant you Social Security as a proper "tax" or "subsidy" unless you're going to pitch me that Social Security is really, in essence, an incentive program for unrestrained natalism to keep population above replacement with all the Manifest Destiny/imperialistic implications and aspirations that come with it, and further, a commitment by the people who started it to never under any circumstances inform descendants of it's true nature.
If you are willing to concede the above, I'll reclassify it as a proper "subsidy" insomuch as it was a law that was passed, and it is a clear act by the government to incentivize activity "X". At which point my discussion will quickly turn to "Holy shit, why are we still trying to empire build in the year of our Lord 2025? Shouldn't we have changed this by now?"
If not... Still seeing it as a Ponzi. A fundamentally degenerate and unstable financial model, intended only to benefit the people who have been in it the longest solely for the purpose of self-enrichment. Well branded, mind; who doesn't want Social Security? But a Ponzi in essence nevertheless.
Without sufficient automation, all forms of retirement are inherently a Ponzi scheme, unless there is a cap to the age or amount of benefits received in retirement.
Drip coffee is amazing: A consistent grinder; fresh, light or medium roasted beans protected from oxidation; and a machine that heats the water to the correct brew temperature (190-195 F)is all you need.
The flavor profiles are akin to wines; no decanting required.
Espresso is my soft spot given my origins, but a good drip on paper filters (to remove some oils and cholesterol) is akin to good tea, full of aromatics. I disagree with the temperature, for me a blonde roast calls for 72 degrees Celsius (162F).
To be accurate, I should qualify that for me it’s “light/medium” and not a true blonde roast.
I haven’t had the pleasure of trying to brew my own blonde roast yet.
But I was amazed when I first tried a black coffee brewed properly, and it took me far longer than I want to admit to learn the basic nuances; it was a very fun journey though.
Exactly, and a lot of people that don't like black coffee never had a solid experience: a cup full of aromatics — like tea — instead of just burnt, bitter, over-heated slurry.
I'm a hater of drip coffee as it almost always contains under-extracted (outside of cone) and over-extracted (middle of cone) coffee. You're correct about the importance of brew temperature, although I take issue with the strange units you use.
For me, full immersion brewing is the best as it's far easier to control than expresso - you can fine-tune the water temperature, the grind size and the brew time until you get coffee that astonishes people. Personally, I'm a big Aeropress fan, though I don't know why so many people make horrible coffee using french presses. I think most french press coffee I've drunk has had far too little coffee or too much water in the brew.
I wasn't complaining about the actual temperature (I tend to 80°C water for my Aeropress brews), but the use of freedom units.
I'm sure there's ways to make quality drip coffee, but all the drip coffee that I've had has been very poor. I've also lost count of the number of times that I see people using boiling water for making coffee.
To my mind, it's easy to get obsessive over making good coffee, but what I'd like to see is just more people knowing how to not make bad coffee. If you're thinking about water temperature and pyramiding the grounds, then you're likely making great coffee.
Good news, the average career in the House is already 8 years, so no new law needed! The Senate average is 11 years, so it's already less than 2 terms, no change needed there either!
I'm only half kidding - yes, there are outliers, many of whom probably should have retired years ago (but not because they've been around too long, but because they're simply too old to do the job - Pelosi and McConnell come to mind). But, the range of term limits that are usually discussed are already within the existing range, so it doesn't change all that much.
Less than 6 years, since there’s a GOP majority and the GOP imposes a 6 year limit of chairs. And since they introduced that (late 90s, Gingrich era?) they’ve fallen into complete uselessness. So I’m not convinced that’s an answer.
Those with longer tenure though tend to end up in the powerful senate positions like becoming a majority/minority leader. Thus you end up with absolute fossils like Pelosi or McConnell who most recently basically snuck in banning hemp into the budget bill, which was something absolutely almost no one in the USA was calling for and incredibly unpopular.
I doubt a minority/majority leader with only 2 terms would be as good at snaking in this kind of stuff in, or snaking their way through the politics of various committees to kill off proposed legislation before it's voted upon, that takes practice to really get good at all the underhanded techniques.
I'd absolutely support a maximum age limit, maybe e.g. if you will reach 70 years of age in your term of office you cannot run. So a senator could be elected up to age 64. A Representative up to age 68. And I'd apply that to all elected offices. My biggest criticism of Biden vs. Trump was that they were both too old.
No, no. We want the wisdom of the older generations.
We want the stability of someone who has seen life’s ups and downs and understands there is more to life than the petty day to days of a presidency. There is a legacy beyond them and they imbue that in their policy.
Age can be a symptom of your inability to do this, but it is not the problem.
The problem is with specific mental ailments and behavior coming into the presidency. We should scrutinize those ailments heavily, and build a culture around stepping down when life inevitably gets to you too — and having it taken from you if you do not take the opportunity for mutual dignity.
The problems that afflicted Biden could happen to anyone at any age. It is a problem if any candidate experiences it.
And I do not really think age has effectively changed Trump’s view of the world.
My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?
reply