Welfare reform

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Low birth rates are a problem in most developed countries, so reducing child benefits might not be the best idea. I prefer raising pension ages to at least 75. People live longer and they are healthy longer - it's fine if they don't feel like working anymore but if so they should fund it themselves and should certainly not be encouraged to sit at home and do nothing.

What a wonderful ivory tower idea! What of the millions of older workers who do physically demanding jobs that their bodies eventually cannot adequately perform well before 75? There was a good story in the NY Times that a nice Dutch college boy might want to read:

A new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that one in three workers over age 58 does a physically demanding job like Mr. Hartley’s — including hammering nails, bending under sinks, lifting baggage — that can be radically different at age 69 than at age 62. Still others work under difficult conditions, like exposure to heat or cold, exposure to contaminants or weather, cramped workplaces or standing for long stretches.

In all, the researchers found that 45 percent of older workers, or 8.5 million, held such difficult jobs. For janitors, nurses’ aides, plumbers, cashiers, waiters, cooks, carpenters, maintenance workers and others, raising the retirement age may mean squeezing more out of a declining body.............................................

And though more Americans are retiring early, it is not always voluntary. A 2006 study by McKinsey & Company found that 40 percent of early retirees said they were forced into it, about half for health reasons.

“If you try to punish people for retiring earlier” by raising the retirement age, “you’re punishing people who aren’t choosing it,” Professor Ghilarducci said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/us/13aging.html


But hey screw 'em; let them fund their forced retirement by themselves. Or make them work themselves to death so society can save a few shekels.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a wonderful ivory tower idea! What of the millions of older workers who do physically demanding jobs that their bodies eventually cannot adequately perform well before 75? There was a good story in the NY Times that a nice Dutch college boy might want to read:

A new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that one in three w ...[text shortened]... irement by themselves. Or make them work themselves to death so society can save a few shekels.

I have no problem with the state providing benefits to those who are not or no longer able to work. If freeloading white collar elderly (who generally have worked fewer years due to having had more education) no longer get benefits it leaves more for those who do need and deserve it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a wonderful ivory tower idea! What of the millions of older workers who do physically demanding jobs that their bodies eventually cannot adequately perform well before 75? There was a good story in the NY Times that a nice Dutch college boy might want to read:

A new analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found that one in three w ...[text shortened]... irement by themselves. Or make them work themselves to death so society can save a few shekels.

If the money wasn't taken from him earlier wouldn't he now have it to retire on?

Originally posted by Wajoma
If the money wasn't taken from him earlier wouldn't he now have it to retire on?

yeah! if he was some wall-street hot shot that always managed to stay ahead of the game, and we know how common they are.......

Originally posted by kmax87
yeah! if he was some wall-street hot shot that always managed to stay ahead of the game, and we know how common they are.......

Got it:

If you can't handle your money well gummint will do it.
If you can handle your money well, gummint will do it.

Who'd uv thunk it.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Got it:

If you can't handle your money well gummint will do it.
If you can handle your money well, gummint will do it.

Who'd uv thunk it.

well we all saw when oversight went out of the window.....Government has a role. Always!

Originally posted by kmax87
well we all saw when oversight went out of the window.....Government has a role. Always!

Oversight went out the window?

If we're talking about Wall St (not sure when you're trying to style it up) then you must have some idea of the amount of regulation they operate under now? How many thousand pages of regulation would you consider to be 'oversight'.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If the money wasn't taken from him earlier wouldn't he now have it to retire on?

That system was tried prior to Social Security and found wanting. It resulted in levels of poverty among the elderly that the majority in society found unacceptable. I know in Wajomastan it's a basic right to be able to starve to death in abject poverty when you are old, but such enlightened thinking isn't prevalent in the US (outside of a few mental wards).

The data:

Elderly poverty in the U.S. decreased dramatically during the twentieth century. Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.

Social Security is often mentioned as a likely contributor to the decline in elderly poverty. Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html

I know you are "fact aversive" but there it is.

What about Banking reform ?? LOOK the reason why there is so much trouble is becuase of the way banks behave. Half of UK welfare spending goes on pensions.

Listen to this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tt6r6

Originally posted by bill718
As I recall, these are the same conservative policies I heard from George W Bush. Did George steer America to a "Bright Future"??😏

W didn't steer america to a bright future, but that was due to other reasons which are completely unrelated to whatever welfare reform he was responsible for.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If the money wasn't taken from him earlier wouldn't he now have it to retire on?

Truly it simply doesn't get any more simplistic than this.

It is the case that taxation leaves no room for savings? I don't think so, unless we're talking about extraordinary tax rates.

The retirement age in the US to get SS should be lowered to 60 and 62. Get the older workers off the payroll so younger workers can get jobs.

Originally posted by badmoon
The retirement age in the US to get SS should be lowered to 60 and 62. Get the older workers off the payroll so younger workers can get jobs.

You'd have to pay for that somehow. Any suggestions?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You'd have to pay for that somehow. Any suggestions?

require a minimum percent of each person's tax burden to be paid in labor, require all able-bodied adults to contribute a minimum portion of tax, and institute a non-complex, automated tax code. that should do it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You'd have to pay for that somehow. Any suggestions?

By lowering the age would create tighter labor markets. That would increaqse wages and tax revenue which in turn strengthens social security revenues.

Anyway, here is an article from an economist who can explain it better than I. Thee are others that support this as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/22/farrell.low.retirement.age.cx/index.html?hpt=Mid