Originally posted by Soothfast Some cuts are necessary. Cut the military budget in half, for starters. Modernize and streamline the way government functions. Lots of stuff.
Gradually over time (say 20 years) the age when one becomes eligible for full social security benefits should be increased to 72. Back when social security was set up 65 was the average life expectancy, but ...[text shortened]... tole the White House in a Supreme Court putsch, then the process would certainly be accelerated.
See? We're getting there. You can't cut the defense budget in half, but there are intelligent and significant cuts out there. I'd far rather start with DHS.
I'll tell you why you can't cut the defense budget in half - the demands placed on the military are so high, the defense budget should probably be half again what it is to meet them. Now - am I advocating for a 50% increase in the defense budget? No. I think there should be a national conversation regarding the expectations placed on the military, their quality of life, what reasonable manpower levels are given what the nation wants to do, an understanding of what the nation wants to do will cost, and then a vote on funding that provides quality of life and necessary aftercare for our military.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 See? We're getting there. You can't cut the defense budget in half, but there are intelligent and significant cuts out there. I'd far rather start with DHS.
I'll tell you why you can't cut the defense budget in half - the demands placed on the military are so high, the defense budget should probably be half again what it is to meet them. Now - ...[text shortened]... n a vote on funding that provides quality of life and necessary aftercare for our military.
Stop running a world wide Empire and we could easily cut the defense budget in half.
Originally posted by no1marauder I'm opposed to raising the eligibility age for SS. 45 years of work is enough; if someone wants to subsist on the low amount of income that SS provides they should have that option when they reach 67.
SS was designed as a program to reduce elderly poverty (and has been extremely successful in doing so). I'd prefer some sort of means testing e system solvent without forcing 70 year old janitors to keep working if they don't want to.
I'd prefer some sort of means testing i.e. reducing benefits on a sliding scale dependent on the beneficiary's present non-SS income. And apply the tax to all types of income and/or raise or eliminate the ceiling on the tax.
These proposals I also would have a mind to implement. But I must emphasize that I said the age to obtain full SS benefits should be 72, which isn't to say someone couldn't retire at 67 or 65 and receive partial benefits. Also, this would have to take place over a period of 15 or 20 years in a gradual way. Additionally, there are those who would prefer to work until they're 70 or 80 (I'd be one of those), and such individuals should not be able to receive full benefits until such time that they decide to retire.* Finally, I would say the age to be eligible for Medicare should be lowered to 50, for those who want it, with means testing implemented to determine how much is reasonable for individuals to pay in premiums.
*EDIT: Your sliding scale would take care of this, clearly.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 See? We're getting there. You can't cut the defense budget in half, but there are intelligent and significant cuts out there. I'd far rather start with DHS.
I'll tell you why you can't cut the defense budget in half - the demands placed on the military are so high, the defense budget should probably be half again what it is to meet them. Now - ...[text shortened]... n a vote on funding that provides quality of life and necessary aftercare for our military.
By "military budget" I mean not just the Department of Defense, but also the related "defense of the Vaterland" agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security.
I'd prefer some sort of means testing i.e. reducing benefits on a sliding scale dependent on the beneficiary's present non-SS income. And apply the tax to all types of income and/or raise or eliminate the ceiling on the tax.
These proposals I also would have a mind to implement. But I must emphasize that I said the age to obtain [/i]full[ esting implemented to determine how much is reasonable for individuals to pay in premiums.
I didn't propose that those who worked until 70 or 80 could get full benefits. I proposed that any benefits be reduced based on their income.
The fact of the matter is that Social Security payments generally put the beneficiary barely above poverty level. If a 67 year old wants to accept that standard of living for whatever reason after a lifetime of productive work, what is the BFD?:
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012.
Originally posted by no1marauder I didn't propose that those who worked until 70 or 80 could get full benefits. I proposed that any benefits be reduced based on their income.
The fact of the matter is that Social Security payments generally put the beneficiary barely above poverty level. If a 67 year old wants to accept that standard of living for whatever reason after a ...[text shortened]... a.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker
I didn't propose that those who worked until 70 or 80 could get full benefits. I proposed that any benefits be reduced based on their income.
Yes, I edited my post almost simultaneously to you saying this, because it's clear the sliding scale plan would account for such individuals.
Originally posted by no1marauder The fact of the matter is that Social Security payments generally put the beneficiary barely above poverty level. If a 67 year old wants to accept that standard of living for whatever reason after a lifetime of productive work, what is the BFD?:
The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the begi ...[text shortened]... sa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker
Well, there is the issue of keeping the program solvent as the Baby Boomers retire. When the Boomers pass into history there may not be a "BFD"...
On the other hand, we have to expect that advanced in medicine will only further increase the lifespan of people over the decades to come. We can't have a significant portion of the population living on Social Security for a third of a century or more.
Originally posted by sasquatch672 See? We're getting there. You can't cut the defense budget in half, but there are intelligent and significant cuts out there. I'd far rather start with DHS.
I'll tell you why you can't cut the defense budget in half - the demands placed on the military are so high, the defense budget should probably be half again what it is to meet them. Now - ...[text shortened]... n a vote on funding that provides quality of life and necessary aftercare for our military.
It's already been said: give up the wet dream of running a global empire. We have the nuclear deterrent. Chinese hordes are not going to come pouring over the Rockies toward Washington D.C.
You and your ilk are still fighting the Cold War. Contemporize.
Originally posted by Soothfast Well, there is the issue of keeping the program solvent as the Baby Boomers retire. When the Boomers pass into history there may not be a "BFD"...
On the other hand, we have to expect that advanced in medicine will only further increase the lifespan of people over the decades to come. We can't have a significant portion of the population living on Social Security for a third of a century or more.
Don't be disingenuous; I proposed measures which would reduce spending and increase revenue and easily make the program solvent.
There's some doubt whether any further major increases in longevity are scientifically possible. When some "significant portion" of seniors are being transplanted into immortal android bodies we could revisit the issue.
Originally posted by no1marauder Don't be disingenuous; I proposed measures which would reduce spending and increase revenue and easily make the program solvent.
I'm not being disingenuous, I simply am not sure. You proposed measures that are certainly necessary to keep the program solvent, but are they sufficient? Doubtless you have a link you could throw out to some solid CBO projection or somesuch. That I would buy.
Originally posted by Soothfast I'm not being disingenuous, I simply am not sure. You proposed measures that are certainly necessary to keep the program solvent, but are they sufficient? Doubtless you have a link you could throw out to some solid CBO projection or somesuch. That I would buy.
(Shrug) Just applying the tax to annual incomes over $250,000 would make the program solvent for the next 75 years according to the SSA. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/BSanders_20110907.pdf
The specific amount of the reductions under the means testing and the tax increases could be adjusted to insure solvency even without a full taxation of incomes over $250,000.
Originally posted by no1marauder First of all, you need to understand that while life expectancy at birth has gone up a lot, that’s not relevant to this issue; what matters is life expectancy for those at or near retirement age. When, to take one example, Alan Simpson — the co-chairman of President Obama’s deficit commission — declared that Social Security was “never intended as a retir ...[text shortened]... ying his ignorance. Even in 1940, Americans who made it to age 65 generally had many years left.
Even in 1940, Americans who made it to age 65 generally had many years left.
Now here's an example of someone (Krugman) being disingenuous. While it's true that anyone who made it to 65 in 1940 had, on average, many years of life left, the fact is the average worker didn't make it to 65. By way of a Gedankenexperiment let's consider an extreme hypothetical situation: that anyone who lived until age 65 automatically lived until they were 80 and then died. Then in 1940 perhaps 40% of the population was living on SS for 15 years (and the other 60% for 0 years), and now roughly 80% of the population is living on it for 13 or 14 years.
It is true that the more affluent are living longer than the poor today, but if the PPACA performs as advertised that will be less true as time goes on. Also we could implement means testing again, I suppose, using someone's income as a way of assessing average life expectancy and adjusting SS benefits accordingly; but it would be better to tackle the root causes of inequality in average life expectancies through universal health care and other policies.
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) Just applying the tax to annual incomes over $250,000 would make the program solvent for the next 75 years according to the SSA. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/BSanders_20110907.pdf
The specific amount of the reductions under the means testing and the tax increases could be adjusted to insure solvency even without a full taxation of incomes over $250,000.
Originally posted by no1marauder (Shrug) Just applying the tax to annual incomes over $250,000 would make the program solvent for the next 75 years according to the SSA. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/BSanders_20110907.pdf
The specific amount of the reductions under the means testing and the tax increases could be adjusted to insure solvency even without a full taxation of incomes over $250,000.
I don't like the idea of means testing SS because the people have paid into the system for decades under the expectation that they'd get their money out. To suddenly say that people who put $$ into the system for 50 years can't take out anything because they saved $$ would be unfair, IMO.
On the other hand, I like the idea of the tax picking up at $250k. If that would save SS for 75 years, then it's a great idea - almost a no-brainer.
Should Republicans Vote Yes Now on the 98%
01 Dec '12 22:01
Back to Top