Zone1 Let's fix retirement, and incentivize the workforce by doing so.

[beagle9]

When you mix money and people there will ALWAYS be abuse, no matter what people they are. As for the cracks, think back to Dickens and you'll see what a Western society with only charitable programs but an enormous number of people falling through cracks. The West has done much better since then but eliminating social programs will only bring back the sufferings of the past.

So you are a believer in Hollywood fiction and the screen plays eh ? How about you join us back here in the real world when you want to get serious son. lol

 

[beagle9]

It seems to me as if this plan is very much geared toward consistent 40-hour-week workers, and would have a hard time applying to others.

For example, the system seems to mean that the self-employed would never reach retirement age. Same with those with long-term disabilities, stay-at-home parents, personal caregivers and, presumably, anyone who spends part of their life in another country. The end result would be a lot of people over the current retirement age who aren't eligible for any assistance, which would create an entire class of the aged poor, which is what we had before Medicare, Social Security, and so on.

On the other hand, every industry would lose a lot of workers age 58-65, especially if you allowed double time to count for double years, or something. For many places, that would be their most experienced workers.

It's always a best practice to stretch your imagination and come up with new ideas, even if they don't work out, but I think this one would have piles of unintended consequences that would do more harm than good.

No, it just works on year's worked, and not instead on hours worked.

Now it could have a minimum of 20 hours per week requirement before a week is justifiable or does count towards the 12 months for the year as would be needed for that Year.

If miss to many hours, and therefore a week or weeks are lost (except for medical issue's if involved), then the week has to be made up, and then next added to the end of your required year's worked requirement.

All details of anything you mentioned, could definitely be debated and protected under a sweeping bill that would cover or involve the entire issue.

 

[alang1216]

So you are a believer in Hollywood fiction and the screen plays eh ? How about you join us back here in the real world when you want to get serious son. lol

When they invent a time machine you should go back to Victorian London and see how you like it. Of course you could just read Dickens.

 

[Zincwarrior]

if we started teaching kids at a young age the importance of saving for the future we wouldnt need a government ran system,,

You have to have something to save something.

 

[progressive hunter]

You have to have something to save something.

thats where a job comes in,,

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Very charitable. I guess your parents weren't poor or victims of discrimination or crime, you don't live in a place where they have earthquakes, floods, etc, and you didn't work in a factory that closed. With all that good fortune you'd think you'd be more appreciative and charitable to people who are not so lucky.

Forced taxes aren't charity.

Plenty of actual charitable organizations help victims of discrimination, crime, disasters, addiction, etc. Catholic Charities is a prime example.

 

[Zincwarrior]

thats where a job comes in,,

Just having " a job" doesn't mean you have enough to save.

 

[progressive hunter]

Just having " a job" doesn't mean you have enough to save.

doesnt mean you dont,,

 

[JoeMoma]

Social Security was originally set up as what I would call "Old Age Insurance" In other words, most people who would pay into the system were not expected to life long enough to collect it or to collect very much of it, thus those that did live well into "Old Age" were insured by the many many people that didn't.

Well, health care and working conditions improved greatly so that people live too damn long for the system to work as originally intended.

 

[progressive hunter]

Social Security was originally set up as what I would call "Old Age Insurance" In other words, most people who would pay into the system were not expected to life long enough to collect it or to collect very much of it, thus those that did live well into "Old Age" were insured by the many many people that didn't.

Well, health care and working conditions improved greatly so that people live too damn long for the system to work as originally intended.

that idea got lost with the very first person to collect it,,

How Much Did the First-Ever Social Security Check Pay Out? | HISTORY

Over her lifetime, the first Social Security recipient received nearly 1,000 times what she paid into the system.

www.history.com

 

[JoeMoma]

that idea got lost with the very first person to collect it,,

How Much Did the First-Ever Social Security Check Pay Out? | HISTORY

Over her lifetime, the first Social Security recipient received nearly 1,000 times what she paid into the system.

www.history.com

No, the idea was to pay some people much more than they put into it because many or most would not live long enough to collect, hence the insurance concept.

 

[alang1216]

Forced taxes aren't charity.

Plenty of actual charitable organizations help victims of discrimination, crime, disasters, addiction, etc. Catholic Charities is a prime example.

Charity is great but I don't think there has ever been a time or place where it has been sufficient. My example is Victorian England, probably the richest country of the time. The rulers believed in self-sufficiency and that charity was not the job of the government. As a result London was a squalid cesspool and Ireland experienced famine. You may want to return to those times, I do not.

 

[Billo_Really]

What about this folks !

Time to fix Social security retirement in this country, and incentivize the workforce in doing so.

Let me explain :

Instead of doing it by maturity dates and/or by one's age, why not just do it by (year's worked in total only), otherwise regardless of the overall ending age and working dates that are set in some sort of weird way (where as the current set up appears to work more for the government in hopes that it won't have to pay out to the retiree their money, and maybe it's all in hopes that the retiree expires before the money is paid out in full) ?????

So let's use 40 year's as the maturity date, and the time set to pay after that 40 year's has been accomplished.

Example: if start work at 16, and work paying into one's social security for 40 year's total, then that person should be able to retire with full benefits at 56 years old. If start @ 20 years old then you retire at 60 years old with full benefits. If start at 25 years old, then you could retire at 65 year's old, but not before then unless take a big cut in those benefit's.

65 will remain the maturity date for anyone joining the workforce after 25 years old, and working for 40 year's paying into social security.

This gives the incentive for the young crowd to do the math, and then get to work on their 40 year time period regardless of their age starting in the workforce (the sooner the better).

Age 65 is required to retire at full retirement benefits through Social security, otherwise if started in the workforce at 25 year's young, and then worked to 65.

Age 65 would remain the ideal date that gives retirement to all worker's regardless of when they enter the work force after 25 year's of age, and attempt to work for 40 years, but a minimum of 15 years must be worked in order to draw anything, and it can't be drawn on until the 65 year's of age requirement is met.

Where am I wrong on this sort of stuff ?

We need to incentivize the young folk's with a long term strategy that makes them see a reward coming if they work hard and do the right thing in life.

I started at 16 and I am 65 now. I am still working and expect to to collect my full social security as well as my two-week paycheck. Is that wrong?

 

[progressive hunter]

Charity is great but I don't think there has ever been a time or place where it has been sufficient. My example is Victorian England, probably the richest country of the time. The rulers believed in self-sufficiency and that charity was not the job of the government. As a result London was a squalid cesspool and Ireland experienced famine. You may want to return to those times, I do not.

still doesnt justify force and theft,,

 

[dblack]

What about this folks !

Time to fix Social security retirement in this country, and incentivize the workforce in doing so.

Let me explain :

Instead of doing it by maturity dates and/or by one's age, why not just do it by (year's worked in total only), otherwise regardless of the overall ending age and working dates that are set in some sort of weird way (where as the current set up appears to work more for the government in hopes that it won't have to pay out to the retiree their money, and maybe it's all in hopes that the retiree expires before the money is paid out in full) ?????

So let's use 40 year's as the maturity date, and the time set to pay after that 40 year's has been accomplished.

Example: if start work at 16, and work paying into one's social security for 40 year's total, then that person should be able to retire with full benefits at 56 years old. If start @ 20 years old then you retire at 60 years old with full benefits. If start at 25 years old, then you could retire at 65 year's old, but not before then unless take a big cut in those benefit's.

65 will remain the maturity date for anyone joining the workforce after 25 years old, and working for 40 year's paying into social security.

This gives the incentive for the young crowd to do the math, and then get to work on their 40 year time period regardless of their age starting in the workforce (the sooner the better).

Age 65 is required to retire at full retirement benefits through Social security, otherwise if started in the workforce at 25 year's young, and then worked to 65.

Age 65 would remain the ideal date that gives retirement to all worker's regardless of when they enter the work force after 25 year's of age, and attempt to work for 40 years, but a minimum of 15 years must be worked in order to draw anything, and it can't be drawn on until the 65 year's of age requirement is met.

Where am I wrong on this sort of stuff ?

It's not the government's job to "incentivize" people. Just leave them alone. Enough with the social engineering.

 

[Zincwarrior]

only way to fix a flawed system is to shut it down and let people to be responsible for themselves,,,

So like India and Pakistan, but not like Canada, and Western Europe. Bold move. Lets see how that works out.

 

[alang1216]

still doesnt justify force and theft,,

yes it does, if that is what most of us want

 

[Natural Citizen]

if we started teaching kids at a young age the importance of saving for the future we wouldnt need a government ran system,,

^^^ This ^^^

I'd only add that they need to be taught very early in life how to create wealth. And how to maintain it. Understanding monetary policy and studying economic theory is pretty much mandatory. And there needs to be a foundation set for the ability to realize trends.

I was blessed in that someone taught me very early in life.

Last entity anyone should be relying on is some government offering some ''plan.'' Pft...

The reality is that if you want to be able to enjoy some semblance of life in your older years, you're better off settign your own terms.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You know, the ironic humor in it all, perhaps even sadistically so, is that all of the ''normals'' who laugh and tell you that you're crazy and don't know things work and that everything's a conspiracy or whatever are the ones scrambling and shitting bricks these days.

 

[progressive hunter]

yes it does, if that is what most of us want

since we are not a democracy what most of us want doesnt matter,,