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

[Couchpotato]

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 ?

One issue is we would be incentivizing people to retire at their peak earning potential. A 57 year old likely pays far more into the “system” than a 16 year old. That retiree would likely draw more in benefits than the 16 y/o would make. We already have an issue with not having sufficient people working to cover the costs of the retirees. This plan (as stated) seems like it would exacerbate that issue.

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.

Mommy and Daddt need to cut them off and the government can’t step in when they do. Hunger is a motivator.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Seems this would also disincentivize a parent choosing to stay home to raise their children.

 

[Red Front]

One issue is we would be incentivizing people to retire at their peak earning potential. A 57 year old likely pays far more into the “system” than a 16 year old. That retiree would likely draw more in benefits than the 16 y/o would make. We already have an issue with not having sufficient people working to cover the costs of the retirees. This plan (as stated) seems like it would exacerbate that issue.


Mommy and Daddt need to cut them off and the government can’t step in when they do. Hunger is a motivator.

Making something of yourself and not living with the bare bones minimum, should and can be the primary motivator for being a productive member of society. Hunger, homelessness, and lack of access to healthcare, and education, hurts everyone, not just the people who are in that state of scarcity and need. It's a lot cheaper to eliminate hunger and homelessness in America than it is to ignore it. Everyone needs at least a basic foundation upon which to build their lives.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Why not revamp it entirely and let people own the accounts instead of the government?
Keep the mandated contributions and deposit them into a Roth IRA that is owned by the individual.

 

[Red Front]

Seems this would also disincentivize a parent choosing to stay home to raise their children.

Yeah:

​

 

[skews13]

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.

The problem is the kind if work you do. Tell all the people in the construction trades they have to work 40 years to be eligible for their benefits.

The people that build this country, the house you live in, the buildings, stores, hospitals, etc., the roads you drive on, the sewers you shit in, the water distribution systems that keep you alive, should not have to work more than 30 years, should be able to collect partial benefits after 15 years, and 80% after 20 years, and full benefits after 30 years no matter what sge they are.

 

[Couchpotato]

Making something of yourself and not living with the bare bones minimum, should and can be the primary motivator for being a productive member of society. Hunger, homelessness, and lack of access to healthcare, and education, hurts everyone, not just the people who are in that state of scarcity and need. It's a lot cheaper to eliminate hunger and homelessness in America than it is to ignore it. Everyone needs at least a basic foundation upon which to build their lives.

You’re missing the point.

 

[Red Front]

The problem is the kind if work you do. Tell all the people in the construction trades they have to work 40 years to be eligible for their benefits.

The people that build this country, the house you live in, the buildings, stores, hospitals, etc., the roads you drive on, the sewers you shit in, the water distribution systems that keep you alive, should not have to work more than 30 years, should be able to collect partial benefits after 15 years, and 80% after 20 years, and full benefits after 30 years no matter what sge they are.

Under capitalism, a high level of production has to be maintained in order to avoid serious inflation. Too many people getting a monthly check from the government or a pension from their former employer can cause inflation if there aren't enough products or assets for them to purchase with their incomes. Prices can go up..etc. In our capitalist system, with a sovereign fiat currency that can be created ex-nihilo by the US federal government, the more people working, making money, and producing goods, the better.

 

[Red Front]

You’re missing the point.

What's the point that I missed? I don't like missing points.

 

[MarathonMike]

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 see two issues right off the bat and forgive me if someone already said this, I didn't read the entire thread. First you would need to account for the total amount of money the person paid into the system. Someone paying the minimum SS tax for 40 years pays in far less than someone paying the maximum SS tax for 20 years. That's clearly unfair. Second what if you work for 35 years and get injured? In your plan that person would get nothing.

 

[beagle9]

The US federal government is not paying Social Security benefits based on the recipient working X amount of years and saving all of that money for the person's retirement. The government has no solvency or liquidity problem when paying any type of entitlement. The purpose of Social Security is to make sure the elderly aren't living in cardboard boxes due to being unemployed. Watch Greenspan the former head of the Fed, educate Paul Ryan, the confused, misinformed right-winger, on the US federal government's ability to ALWAYS pay Social Security and meet its financial obligations:

​

Paying into any system should come with guarantees, and not these multi-layered scheme's that figure out how to screw people out of their hard earned retirement money, and the security that should come with that money..... Yes the government should charge a handling fee for insuring the program's success, and for keeping the system solvent for the well deserved qualified recipient's... .

Insurance is a damned scam as well. To many scheme's allowed to screw people out of their money in those games played also.

 

[beagle9]

I see two issues right off the bat and forgive me if someone already said this, I didn't read the entire thread. First you would need to account for the total amount of money the person paid into the system. Someone paying the minimum SS tax for 40 years pays in far less than someone paying the maximum SS tax for 20 years. That's clearly unfair. Second what if you work for 35 years and get injured? In your plan that person would get nothing.

All things that need to be worked out, otherwise tweak the plan to make it work. It's a grievance for sure, but with any grievance solution's can be worked out better in these situations.

 

[sparky]

The problem is the kind if work you do. Tell all the people in the construction trades they have to work 40 years to be eligible for their benefits.

going on 1/2 century now....

The people that build this country, the house you live in, the buildings, stores, hospitals, etc., the roads you drive on, the sewers you shit in, the water distribution systems that keep you alive, should not have to work more than 30 years, should be able to collect partial benefits after 15 years, and 80% after 20 years, and full benefits after 30 years no matter what sge they are.

but we're fodder Skews, always have been......

~S~

 

[sparky]

Paying into any system should come with guarantees

the only quarantee i see is our gub'mit screwing uo

~S~

 

[Red Front]

Paying into any system should come with guarantees, and not these multi-layered scheme's that figure out how to screw people out of their hard earned retirement money, and the security that should come with that money..... Yes the government should charge a handling fee for insuring the program's success, and for keeping the system solvent for the well deserved qualified recipient's... .

Insurance is a damned scam as well. To many scheme's allowed to screw people out of their money in those games played also.

The reason the government expects us to pay into our future Social Security income is to keep people productive. The production of goods and services is important, to avoid inflation and make sure consumers can purchase everything they need and want. We don't work and pay into the system to fund it, because the US federal government is the exclusive issuer of the dollar, creating it ex-nihilo. No one funds the US federal government.

 

[beagle9]

The reason the government expects us to pay into our future Social Security income is to keep people productive. The production of goods and services is important, to avoid inflation and make sure consumers can purchase everything they need and want. We don't work and pay into the system to fund it, because the US federal government is the exclusive issuer of the dollar, creating it ex-nihilo. No one funds the US federal government.

Huh ?

 

[Red Front]

Huh ?

You didn't know that? The reason you are required to pay into the system, whether it's federal income taxes or your Social Security, is for production. You're producing, you're working, in something, whatever that might be. You're producing a product, you're delivering a service, you're running a business..etc. You're producing and that allows people to purchase the products and services that they consume and use. When you have to pay the US government taxes or any fee, in US dollars, you're forced to produce. Get a job, start a business..etc, and produce products, services..etc, in order to create the stuff people buy. That's why we have an economy. You're not paying those federal taxes or fees to Washington DC, because the US federal government needs you to provide it with dollars. The US federal government is the exclusive issuer or creator of the US dollar, it doesn't need you or me to provide it with dollars. It needs us to pay taxes and other fees in dollars, for a reason other than funding. The US federal government can't go broke.

The US federal government will never go insolvent or broke, it will always have as many US dollars as it needs, by simply "printing" (typing into a keyboard) whatever amount it wants to deposit in your "Social Security account". In order to avoid run-away inflation or the collapse of our economy, the US federal government requires you and me to be productive. To get a job, to start a business, to produce the products and deliver the services that people buy with the USD that the US federal government "prints" / creates.

Paul Ryan in the video below this thinks the US federal government can become insolvent i.e. unable to pay Social Security, due to lack of money. Greenspan the head of the FED at the time educates Paul Ryan on how our monetary system works. He states that there is nothing stopping the US federal government from creating dollars and giving it away to whomever it wants. The issue is whether Social Security recipients will be able to purchase products or services with that money, by there being assets available for them to buy.

The workforce i.e. the producers, have to produce products and deliver services to American consumers, or else Social Security recipients, will have their government-paid income, but the market will be unable to deliver the goods and services they want to buy. The market will be unable to supply the demand. Too much money and too many people trying to buy stuff, without enough products or services to purchase. When there is scarcity in the market (not enough production), and too much money in private hands, prices shoot up and we get inflation. The value of the USD would plummet.

​

You have to pay into the system, because in order for you to pay into the system, you're forced to be productive. Get a job or start a business..etc. You have to produce. Then once you retire and start collecting your monthly government income, you will be able to buy stuff, there will be enough products in store shelves for you to buy. Prices won't go through the roof, because the amount of money that is in the private sector or in private hands, reflects production. Watch these videos for accurate info on how our monetary system works:

​