Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Descan]

I'm still a fan of basic income, which the elderly (and below-basic-needs poor) would qualify for~

Though I'm not sure if only the elderly who are below basic-needs should qualify, or all of them. Basic idea of basic-income is to keep you from starving/freezing (Canada, remember), but you'd work to get anything more than "rice and a roof" style living. (I'd prefer to be able to give everyone a LIVING wage, but baby-steps. We'll get to a work-less future eventually!~)

Problem with the elderly in that regard is that they... PROBABLY aren't going to be working to get anything more, eh? And unless they've some investments from their work-life, it'd be a shitty way to end your life, rice-and-a-roof style...

[misko27]

The problem is that as lifespan increases, there will be ever more of them. Living for longer. Being ever frailer. It's not like poverty: you can't lift them out of their conditions.

Unless we get that age reversal thing I keep hearing about going, we have to deal with an underclass of dependents either way.

Also, out of curiosity, what does Bay12 think about the US barring the Iranian Diplomat to the UN? It's unprecedented to bar UN diplomats, but the reason is that he's a member of the group that took the American Diplomats hostage back in 1979.

[10ebbor10]

Well, it'll probably end up as a stalemate thingy with neither side willing to give in, but I don't see it derailing the Geneva agreement or anything.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

... yeah. How do you propose to gut it without leaving a significant portion of our elderly either on the streets or further below the poverty line than they already are? There's... considerably more SS does, than that, but that's what you're going to have to solve if you want to "gut" the program before it does more harm.

Something that doesn't involve the inherently untenable growth logic that SS operates under. The way the elderly will be out on the streets is if we don't replace it, since it'll fail sooner rather than later. That or sucking unacceptable amounts of money from the young to prop up the old, which I think anyone can see the economic problem with.

Basic income is one solution, yes. I don't have all the answers on this one, but I know we can't keep going as it is. The system is already disrupted, and when we reach the critical point, whenever that will be, the consequences could be enormous. I mean, you realize that nobody under the age of 40 has any realistic chance of ever retiring under the program as it exists, right? And people who are my age? Just throwing money into the fire.

[misko27]

The problem is gutting SS in any way, shape or form is abhorrent to both parties; Democrats because of the general resistance to cutting social programs, Republicans because they are predominantly old, and pissing off the base in that way would be tantamount to suicide. Remember when Bush tried to privatize it? Complete non-starter, despite a large campaign by him.

I mean the politician to try it would need FDR levels of support. Or be like Obama and pull something big in the first two years after a wave.

[GlyphGryph]

Wait, why do people want to cut Social Security, instead of just funding it properly?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because it can't be funded properly so long as it relies upon contributions from the workers to the retired. And given how large a portion of the budget it makes up, we can't just use more taxes to fund it.

[GlyphGryph]

Because it can't be funded properly so long as it relies upon contributions from the workers to the retired. And given how large a portion of the budget it makes up, we can't just use more taxes to fund it.

Why not? We'd only have to add enough taxes to make up the difference, not to fund the whole thing anew. Tax rates are incredibly low right now, the lowest they've basically been in a hundred years, there's plenty we could do to pull in more money if we decide we need to.

In fact, keeping SS solvent is probably one of the few things that would be politically feasible as a reason to raise taxes, something the government should be doing anyway, so in my mind everything about SS (it's effects, it's funding, it's future political ramifications) is a good thing. Why would we want to argue that we should get rid of it and let the old folks rot? What does that accomplish, exactly?

[Helgoland]

Because it can't be funded properly so long as it relies upon contributions from the workers to the retired. And given how large a portion of the budget it makes up, we can't just use more taxes to fund it.

Even if everyone saved up the money they'd then use for retirement, someone would still have to bake their bread, stock their supermarket, prescribe their medication... Money is just a way of signifying what part of the economic output belongs to who; the old will always have to be supported by the young.

[10ebbor10]

Yeez, the US could triple it's taxes and still have a lower tax rate than several European countries.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because it can't be funded properly so long as it relies upon contributions from the workers to the retired. And given how large a portion of the budget it makes up, we can't just use more taxes to fund it.

Why not? We'd only have to add enough taxes to make up the difference, not to fund the whole thing anew. Tax rates are incredibly low right now, the lowest they've basically been in a hundred years, there's plenty we could do to pull in more money if we decide we need to.

In fact, keeping SS solvent is probably one of the few things that would be politically feasible as a reason to raise taxes, something the government should be doing anyway, so in my mind everything about SS (it's effects, it's funding, it's future political ramifications) is a good thing. Why would we want to argue that we should get rid of it and let the old folks rot? What does that accomplish, exactly?

You don't really get it, do you? I'll admit I'm not a fan of the retired population, but that's not what this is about. SS is going to collapse. Period. We can either replace it before the problem spirals out of control, or we can let it spiral out of control, but we most certainly can't keep it. The math fails on a basic level. There cannot be a lower population of contributors than beneficiaries.

Yeez, the US could triple it's taxes and still have a lower tax rate than several European countries.

The issue here is that if the US triples its taxes, it isn't going to be the fair progressive deal that you might get in Europe. It's going to be the "fair" flat deal that puts even more pressure on everybody but the rich.

[Helgoland]

Then raise the age of eligibility, for crying out loud! Also, the US population is still growing - come look at Europe or Japan if you want to see a real demographic problem.

[misko27]

US birth rates are actually similar to European ones, we just get so many immigrants it doesn't matter. And if you include the illegals it goes up even more (We have 11 million illegals.)

[Sheb]

Yeah, grant more work visas to illegals to broaden the tax base and just remove the cap on payroll tax (they're the one that fund SS, right?) would go a long way.

Also, who's the genius that decided the retirement program would share initials with the Schutzstaffel?

[10ebbor10]

It's counter socialist Republican propaganda, duh.