No, good idea in theory but impossible in the real world. It's like communism, it's workable only in a perfect world. You need continual and constant expansion each generation or the system fails.
The problem with the system as it stands is there will be more retired and less workers in the economy and skyrocketing costs even with out adding bullshit like prescription drug benefits. That means every increasing cost and no way to fund it. Not to mention the steadily growing bueracratic bloat that's really rotting the system.
Right now it's nothing more than a way to buy senior votes by promising ever increasing benefits and new plans.
Actually social security can and does work in other nations, the problem is establishing the system so that it doesn't become a horrible bloated POS that exists for the purpose of bureaucracy, not the citizen.
weemadando wrote:Actually social security can and does work in other nations, the problem is establishing the system so that it doesn't become a horrible bloated POS that exists for the purpose of bureaucracy, not the citizen.
Not programs of the american model. Those are generally part of comprehensive social welfare program rather than the mish-mash that we have. The problem with American SS is that it's an entitlement as oppossed to others which can be adjusted. Which of course means it needs a constant and steadily increasing flow of money to simply work at break even.
Even then a lot of those other programs have the same problems of bueracratic bloat and steadily increasing tax burdens.
This is something I just wrote to Hemlock in a PM on social security and related issues:
< snip message >
Response:
1. The clearly disabled, who do not have a family able to support them, should be cared for by society. They should, however, be cared for in a fashion that allows society to have a degree of control over the allocation of funds [A disabled individual who is unable to provide for themselves and has no family who can do so, either, should be in a state-supervised setting, so the money isn't going down a drain somewhere, essentially. That may sound a bit authoritarian, but again, I emphasize state, not federal--powers in our constitution are reserved to the states, or the people, and in some cases there is a need for the state to do the work. But I think most disabled people can be re-trained to have productive careers]. This care, furthermore, should be limited to state programs, not federal.
2. Those who are "between" work should certainly have access to job-retraining, and limited unemployment benefits. These, however, should again be at the state level only, not Federal. [In particular, unemployment benefits should be tailored to the individual's financial situation--not designed to make anyone survive, but designed to keep that person alive, their mortgages intact, them in their home and their possessions okay. Yes, that could cost a lot of money. Why is it a good idea? Because if they're really going to get another job, then they should have a cushion until the period of hardship is over, a cushion which allows them to seamlessly transit into the new job. Naturally, that cushion should last only as long as-is necessary for them to realistically find a job, then they sink or swim on their own.]
((As for job retraining, I might add that it has a singular goal: create a productive worker. Thus, it needs to be responsive to the needs of industry; at the same time, it needs to make sure that the people involved in it stay with it until it is completed. They should have hands on training, they need to be focused, and committed, and if necessary they need to have support from non-vocational sectors to get them the help to put their lives back together.))
[[Naturally I do not support any form of pure welfare; just unemployment benefits and job-retraining, and these, only at the state level.]]
3. Instead of social security, persons above a certain age should be eligible for a tax exemption, should they desire it. Were this for a sales tax, it would involve registering for a programme--entirely optional, unlike social security--where they receive a card, like a credit card, which they can show at stores. This would give them an exemption from the sales tax on all non-luxury items. Otherwise a fixed portion of their income would be exempted from the income tax, sufficient to pay for all necessities of life, while not being extreme enough as to avoid taxation of very wealthy seniors.
4. This program could, furthermore, be essentially identical to one whereupon there would be a lower tax cap in an income tax. That is to say, perhaps, the first $30,000 dollars of everybody's income does not get taxed, regardless of age. If you make less than $30,000 dollars, then, you pay no tax. If you make more, you pay a flat income tax on that. If you're a senior, of course, you get the tax break from that, which should be sufficient.
5. Or we can go with the sales tax, which would simply give such "refund" cards to those who make less than a certain amount of money, as well as seniors.
6. This tax system would be at both the federal AND state levels, as a constitutional amendment to fix the current tax system would be necessary, thus allowing it without violating constitutional principles.
7. I am not even opposed to medical care, as such, as long as, again, it is implemented at the state level. I believe, however, that it should be along roughly the following system:
a. The state pays for free Emergency-Room care for everyone below a certain income level (Let's say $30,000 dollars, again) and for seniors. Bodies rotting in the street from people who can't afford a doctor is something that society just can't afford, after all.
b. A state plan is available, for everyone residing in the state, which is entirely optional. That is, you can opt into it like an insurance plan. It's available for anyone. There could be a basic plan, which is free, and more expensive plans which require some pay-in.
c. Naturally, full competition with private insurance is allowed.
d. Emergency-Room care for those who are able to pay is naturally covered either by their state plan, if they one, or their private plan. If they do not have insurance, but are in the range where it is not free because they have enough money, they are, of course, duly hounded by creditors if they don't pay for it.
e. Yes, that means you can choose not to have insurance. However, seniors and the poor would still have free ER visits.
In Conclusion: Such a plan would be limited to the state level, as it is not the duty of the Federal government to implement it. It may require a large tax expenditure to implement on the state level, but it could be responsive to the specific needs and desires of the state--with the above providing a basic outline--while at the same time the reduction in general federal government expenditures in all areas would mean a reduction in the federal tax burden by a huge amount; so the overall tax burden would be reduced.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
I have read so many letters in this forum complaining about education taxes, I thought I would do a little complaining myself. I am a student and beneficiary of taxes from those who have no children. Thank you. But some of you argue that you do not benefit from paying for me and my colleagues to be educated (which remains to be seen).
Alrighty then, I can think of one major tax that will not benefit me. It is the largest tax I pay out of my student-sized paycheck. Currently, one Social Security taxpayer pays for 16 people. When all of you go into retirement, that figure will nearly double, and when my retirement is due, Social Security will be gone. I won't get a dime of the money I paid into it.
So, if you don't want to help pay for my schooling, I'll gladly pay a higher tax for it. But I, in turn, want exemption from the stiff Social Security tax that eats up my paycheck and won't benefit me.
By the way, if all who were my age became exempt from the Social Security tax, the system would go bankrupt quite fast -- unless your payroll tax is raised. So be careful what you wish for.
Tijs Limburg
Murray
Twas in a recent op/ed and was relevent.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
