Sun Devil 92
Diamond Member
- Apr 2, 2015
- 32,078
- 11,094
- 1,410
- Banned
- #1
Social Security has been around for several decades now. In it's heyday, it was something politicians loved to talk about. After the mid 70's, it started to look a little different.
Still just a few years ago, Harry Reid referred to it as the most successful social program in the history of the world.
Others would disagree.
Some are not so sure just what the program is anymore (compared to what it was supposed to be).
On the surface it appears to have turned into a national retirement program. Social Security itself says people should not rely on it soley for retirement. And yet that is what many people are doing. They have some savings, but everything I read says it is less than 100,000 going into retirement. That really isn't that much.
For many years I rejected the idea of Social Security as a viable program. However, it is clear that many people won't save (seriously) for retirement. I since come to the opinion that they should be forced to save.
However, the current pay-go system seems flawed to me and I would certainly come at it differently.
I'd like to hear how others feel on this topic.
Rules for this discussion:
1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.)
2. Any discussion of the past should be done to provide context for your "redesign" (if you feel one is necessary). Commentary about the past (and blaming and smearing or name calling) is not allowed.
3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.
THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:
You have an opportunity to participate in a process of redesigning Social Security from scratch. That could include scrapping it all now and not replacing it. Or your make any modifications you'd like. What would your system look like and why ?
Still just a few years ago, Harry Reid referred to it as the most successful social program in the history of the world.
Others would disagree.
Some are not so sure just what the program is anymore (compared to what it was supposed to be).
On the surface it appears to have turned into a national retirement program. Social Security itself says people should not rely on it soley for retirement. And yet that is what many people are doing. They have some savings, but everything I read says it is less than 100,000 going into retirement. That really isn't that much.
For many years I rejected the idea of Social Security as a viable program. However, it is clear that many people won't save (seriously) for retirement. I since come to the opinion that they should be forced to save.
However, the current pay-go system seems flawed to me and I would certainly come at it differently.
I'd like to hear how others feel on this topic.
Rules for this discussion:
1. No ad hominem or personal attacks directed to members, political parties, or ideologies (liberals, conservatives, etc.)
2. Any discussion of the past should be done to provide context for your "redesign" (if you feel one is necessary). Commentary about the past (and blaming and smearing or name calling) is not allowed.
3. Links can be useful but are not required. If you do use them, post a illustrative paragraph or two that makes the point you want to make with the link or explain in your own words a summary of what your linked material will tell us.
THE HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED:
You have an opportunity to participate in a process of redesigning Social Security from scratch. That could include scrapping it all now and not replacing it. Or your make any modifications you'd like. What would your system look like and why ?