| Author |
Topic:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor [Locked] |
ZigmundZag  Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts: 1,211
Registered: 2002-3-25 23:03:00
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
/inb4goldfishpic
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
Sansfear  Posts: 757
Registered: 2008-8-31 05:04:52
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
|
SS and Medicare should be separated from the main budget and balanced independently.
Including them in the overall budget deforms the view of just how badly we are overspending.
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts: 1,674
Registered: 2001-12-21 09:51:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
ZigmundZag posted:
/inb4goldfishpic
Yup.
Yuki posted:
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
Yukishiro1 Posts: 3,243
Registered: 2002-9-20 23:52:57
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
ZigmundZag posted:
/inb4goldfishpic
Yup.
Yuki posted:
 
|
theredkay1 Posts: 611
Registered: 2008-5-16 10:37:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Abaddon_Ambrosius posted:
theredkay1 posted:
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.[..
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 --->
SS has been changed. It is currently operating exactly as its designed to do. It was never designed as a 2-5 year income patch. You need to make an argument why any changes are a bad thing and need to be repealed. Simply stating that something was changed as evidence that it needs to be blown up is stupid.
SS finances are ok. There is no SS budget problem. The change in expected duration of coverage is almost zero...but that is one of those things that people easily misread stats (avg lifespan) and draw a bad conclusion because they are looking for a certain conclusion and will jump at any number that might help them.
|
_Enkidu_  Title: Zen Badger
Posts: 280
Registered: 2001-12-24 05:02:15
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Lol, glad I don't have to worry about SS.
I still find it insane that most people cannot opt out of it.
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
the_great_intex Title: This is what cool looks like
Posts: 1,669
Registered: 2002-6-27 08:18:27
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
I don't like social security. I think people should be given the ability to opt out of it.
-----signature-----
Only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly
In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity
The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure
Time Circuits... On. Flux Capacitor.... fluxxing.
|
Abaddon_Ambrosius Title: Retired Theurgist TL
Posts: 1,674
Registered: 2001-12-21 09:51:39
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
theredkay1 posted:
SS has been changed. It is currently operating exactly as its designed to do.
SS finances are ok. There is no SS budget problem.
-----signature-----
In the immortal words of Socrates - "I drank what?"
"God you guys suck at the internet - how can you fail to locate porn?!" - Eternal_Midnight
"Knowing means nothing." - Fat-badger
|
theredkay1 Posts: 611
Registered: 2008-5-16 10:37:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Bobvillas posted:
In 1950, 100 workers supported six beneficiaries. Today, 100 workers support 33 beneficiaries.
Conclusion: If this program is not reformed again, it is not sustainable.
Its been about 100 to 30 since the mid 70's. 1950 was the beginning of the program and is a bad reference point. By 1961 the ratio was 100-22. In 2011 it was 100-34.
Worker productivity is up dramatically (over 100%) over the same time period meaning 1 worker can support more people in 2011 than he could in 1961.
Productivity will increase into the future as well meaning 1 worker will be able to support even more retirees in the future. And this population bulge is a one time. SS is projected to be able to pay full benefits with no changes for another 25+ years. To bring the system into balance for the next 75 years we need a 1% increase in taxes.
Pair the 1% tax increase with the rise in productivity in the future and there is no emergency.
|
theredkay1 Posts: 611
Registered: 2008-5-16 10:37:09
|
Date Posted:
1/1/00 12:00am
Subject:
Most government benefits go to middle class, not poor - and very little goes to the lazy poor |
Bobvillas posted:
Raising the age is a great start.
Edit: Just looked and since SS began in 1935, the life expectancy has risen 26% (to 78), but the retirement age for full benefits has increased only 3%.
Life expectancy is not the statistic you are looking for.
If country A has 2 people, one dies at birth and the other lives to 100....avg life expectancy is 50 years.
If country B has 2 people, both live to 100, life expectancy is 100.
A & B are in the exact same situation with regards to a SS system.
The change in life expectancy over the last 50+ years is almost exclusively improvements in birth and a reduction in childhood deaths. Life expectancy for those people who live into their 20's (and would be working) has only increased a few years...and SS age has moved up a couple years.
Changes in life expectancy plays no significant role in the SS budget picture.
|
|
