Print

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

[Vector]

Just gonna say that enforced helping out at school doesn't work when, say, both parents are working, or there's kids who aren't in school, and so on.

Some people have flexible hours.  Those people are usually not poor.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's just no way to get enough population growth to use that as a solution to the Social Security issue. 60% of the USA's population are Baby Boomers, and they're all going to be dying in about a 20 year time period. The only viable solution I can see is to change the Social Security system so that you pay into your personal social security instead of into a collective that is redistributed to you, which is what got us into this situation.

How does it solve anything? And how would you manage the inflation?

It solves something because Social Security, as it stands now, is a collective program. The people who aren't retired pay money into it, and the people who are retired take money from it. This wouldn't be much of a problem if not for the fact that there will soon (around 10 years from now) be way, way more people retired and taking money from it than working and putting money into it. Essentially, the retired baby boomers trying to subsist on the social security payments of Generations X, Y, and Z, whom together are only about a third as large as the baby boomers. You can see how that's going to be a problem.

Why this would solve the problem is that it would make it so a person only pays for their own retirement with their Social Security payments, instead of the retirements of others. This makes it so the Social Security deposits and withdrawals remain 1:1 in any and all possible situations, immunizing the system to problems like the one facing us now, where the ratio is starting to rise to be 1:3. It wouldn't cause inflation, actually. If anything, it would reduce inflation because money is being taken off the market and stored for a person's retirement.

[Nadaka]

MSH: Nothing is stopping people from investing in their own 401k or other retirement program. And that is exactly what you are describing. SSI covers everyone in order to cover those who can not do so. You are also exaggerating the numerical difference in the number of retired vs working people, Baby boomers may have fewer children compared to their parents, but we also have a fairly large number of working immigrants paying into the system.

There are other options that can preserve SSI in the long run. The following are just a few, and depending on the specifics, not all of them may be needed.
1: removing the cap for contributions.
2: increase the percentage paid per worker.
3: increase the retirement age to reflect the increased life expectancy of the population.
4: Prorate SSI payments based on other retirement payouts.

[Phmcw]

Metalslime : the thing is : I understand your point, but it would not be efficient. I'm not sure I can explain why properly, however.

I'll try but you should seek a better economist than me, if you're interested by the matter. I'm pretty sure he will tell you that it is not a solution, too.

The idea is that  long term investment is uncertain, and that inflation make simply storing the money impossible.
How could you know how much you should spare to pay your health-care in 60 years? And if you invest it, how can you be sure that you won't loose it.

A third point is : and who shall pay for those who are old now? We can't pay for the retirement of our parents and ours own.
Beside, economic grow make sure that we , as a nation, make more money now than ever, thus rendering your argument invalid.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think it needs a major overhaul. I like 2, but I think it should be on a person-by-person basis. Eg, whereas a dock loader might be unable to keep up his job after sixty (without risking major injury), people in less physical jobs, such as a doctor or a lawyer, might be able to continue their practices well beyond that. Also, the possibility of "part-retirements", in which people would keep up working but for less hours...

[Andir]

we also have a fairly large number of working immigrants paying into the system.

For those farmers that actually report it... I happen to know a few that did not.  They'd pay the workers in cash for each day's work... and there were a lot of workers picking those tomatoes/pickles...

[Nadaka]

Not all immigrants are migrant farm workers.

[Andir]

Not all immigrants are migrant farm workers.

Yes, but there are a great portion of immigrants who do.  I also understand that there is a great portion that come here on work visa that pay into SS but never see a penny back.  I thought that was being changed though.

[Nadaka]

H1b visa holders pay into SSI, as do other working legal immigrants in most jobs. While H1b visa's are strictly temporary they can benefit from the disability aspect of SSI if they can get through the approval process before leaving (admittedly very unlikely). I am aware that some people want to do away with this, but I don't think its going anywhere soon.

[Siquo]

Ah, USUSUSUSUKUSUSUSUSUK. I'm starting to see a pattern, there. Also, the UK universities listed here don't accept all students. They get to pick the cream of the crop.

Well yeah, I'm currently in the process of applying to Cambridge University, so I know.  Note that they pick based on merit rather than money, though (having mostly state funded universities doesn't mean they can't be meritocratic).

Good luck! But remember, you could always sell your kidney.

[Leafsnail]

That would be kindof pointless considering how ridiculously lenient the terms of the government-granted student loan are*.  I don't think it'd even be allowed to count towards your repayments .

*Basically, you don't have to start paying it back at all until you're earning over £21,000 a year, and then you have to pay back £X a month where X = (Your yearly salary in pounds - 21,000)x0.09.  No, you don't get given money if X  is negative .  The loan also completely expires after something like 15 years and has no interest.

[Nadaka]

Whoa. Those student loans are incredibly lenient.

In the US, they are normal loans with relatively low interest (mine are at 2.4% and 6.8%).

After graduation you have a 6month grace period to start paying them off. You can also get another 18 months IIRC of hardship extensions. Note that while you don't have to pay on them for these periods, they still accrue interest that is added to the amount of the loan.

Also, you can never go bankrupt on a student loan.  Well, you can try, but the government will place them back on to you after the bankruptcy.

The only practical way out is to pay it and all the interest off, but they do occasionally withdraw the loans if you are disabled for a decade or more.

[MonkeyHead]

That would be kindof pointless considering how ridiculously lenient the terms of the government-granted student loan are*.  I don't think it'd even be allowed to count towards your repayments .

*Basically, you don't have to start paying it back at all until you're earning over £21,000 a year, and then you have to pay back £X a month where X = (Your yearly salary in pounds - 21,000)x0.09.  No, you don't get given money if X  is negative .  The loan also completely expires after something like 15 years and has no interest.

Trying to remember my most recent student loan statement as some of that doesn't seem to match up with my experiences... firstly, that I pay 9% of anything I earn over £1250 a month towards my loan, which makes my payments hefty as I earn a fair bit more than that. In addition, it does have an interest rate (addmitedly quite low - currently 1.5%, but it has dropped to there from 3% over the last 5 years) and it took several pay rises early in my career for me to start paying more than the interest as I had a large loan for my many years of study (under and post grad, even if I was fortunate with bursaries for some of it... best advice I was ever given was to apply for a loan to cover 4 years, and cut it to 3 if needed, as no-one was ever given an extra years worth of loan cash if they took 3 years and needed 4). As for it being written off - this only occurs when you reach the age of 65, or after 25 years for loans taken out more recently - sorry!

For the record I have been paying mine off for about a decade and have half of it left to pay off - not that I am bitter about this, as I am pretty well paid (mainly as a result of my education) and I have no issue paying for the education I have had. I also have no issue in my (admittedly large with very advantageous terms) pension payments or National Insurance contributions (hell, I will need hospital care at some point right?), but I have serious issues with the amout of tax those of us in the UK pay. Personally the 20% VAT, obscene fuel taxes (over £1.40 a Ltr for diesel, most of which is tax!), offensive road tax (over £200 a year for me), and PAYE tax on my pay check  (20% of my income for the lower 75% of my pay and 40% for the higher 25%) are hard to take. Dont get me started on local governmental council taxes... they are even worse.

EDIT: checked some of my numbers to make this a bit more solid and less estimated.

[Leafsnail]

Trying to remember my most recent student loan statement as some of that doesn't seem to match up with my experiences...

It shouldn't, since this loan system is entirely new (accompanying the massive tuition fee increases) and will only apply to people who enter university in 2012 or later.

[Sheb]

Which conditions do you have to satisfy to get into the loan system? I had anbandonned my hope of getting into Cambridge as a grad student because of the huge fees, but I might change my mind.