I don't know what you're angling toward here, Yuki.

The problem is 'mandatory' benefits/entitlement spending that is not (medicare, etc), and the continued ballooning of SS as a redistributive mechanism rather than the 'emergency insurance 2-to-5 year' safety net for the needy elderly it was designed to be.

 

-----signature-----

Either a program is justified or it's not.

 

-----signature-----

Does this study consider tax writeoffs for mortgages and whatnot part of government "benefit"?

Oh, and when we speak of the bottom fifth of the population are we speaking about numbers of people - as in 20% of the population or are we talking about the people whose income is in the bottom 20% of the income curve (which group may make up more or less than 20% of the overall population).

 

-----signature-----

What do you mean by 'the problem'?


These things are not budgetary problems...ie 'how can we pay for this?'...but they may be directional problems...ie 'I dont care about the numbers, we shouldnt be paying for this.'


Directional problems can cover just about any gov't program. But the budgetary problem is entirely medicare. People confuse this in their arguments all the time.


SS finances are not a long term problem of any magnitude and SS is acting exactly as it was designed to. You may not like this design but you should make that argument. Insurance policies are always redistributive and SS is not designed to work as a 2-5 year income patch.

Clearly we need more poor people.


And Obamney is just the establishment figurehead to give them to us.

Thanks, as usual, for saving me the trouble of reading to the end.

No, it isn't. That's a flat out lie that renders whatever else you're saying moot. We (and I) posted dozens of sources about the origins of SS, the pay-in pay-out ratios of persons and monies being altered over the years, the rising redistributive nature, the repeated extension of the expected duration of coverage at the end of one's life, etc.

So you can exit the thread that way --->

 

-----signature-----

SS wasn't originally envisioned to be paying for 10+ years of retirement for an average American. But it was budgeted so conservatively that it still is working out ok even though things have changed a lot. It needs a few very minor tweaks to be fine.

Yeah. Minor tweaks like, funding only 4-6 years of elder care.

And, REPLACING ALL THE MONEY THAT WAS RAIDED FROM IT OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS.

Just wee little tweaks...

 

-----signature-----

No. It doesn't need to be changed to only cover 4-6 years. The minor tweaks basically amount to some combination of either or all of (1) raising the eligibility age by 2-3 years over the next 30 years or (2) cutting benefits by 2-5% or (3) means-testing. Pretty minor stuff. And most of the problems are only for the next generation because of there being so many boomers.


It is all pretty minor. SS is working remarkably well actually. It had to be budgeted to cover the costs of the free ride all the seniors alive at the time got, so that ended up giving it a big cushion once those people died.

Why? That's its original intent... cover those impoverished and without other means, for the last 4-6 years of their lives, when they lived more than a few years past a realistic retirement age. (Which is about 72 now, btw, and rising).

So, why? Because even though it is doing far more than it is supposed to, it can AFFORD NOT to be cut, standing on its own, independent of the rest of the budget mess? (Which btw is fueled by spending the money in that fund on a mountain of other unnecessary crap).

I see.

You're clearly not getting it.

 

-----signature-----