The compromise on SS that both sides should be able to agree on.

[Stormy Daniels]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

 

[Flash]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

How about just doing away with the program?

Pay back the money to those that were forced to contribute and then call it quits.

You be responsible for your retirement and I be responsible for mine and we leave the friggin government out of it. Sounds good?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Simple. Just make it an opt in or out decision. Whatever amount you have accrued is the pittance you will receive. Not really gonna matter too much longer. A digital blockchain is on the horizon............... The dollar will become worthless.

 

[kyzr]

How about just doing away with the program?
Pay back the money to those that were forced to contribute and then call it quits.
You be responsible for your retirement and I be responsible for mine and we leave the friggin government out of it. Sounds good?

No. SS is a necessity for working people.
SS worked well for over 70 years with minor tweaks. SS needs a "fix" like raise the 62 "early" retirement age a year, and raise the "cap". Problem solved.

Also, make it a required program, no opting out for private plans. You can have both, but paying into SS should be required.

 

[Anathema]

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

I could almost agree with that, with a couple provisions…

1. every individual is allowed to opt out of the investment half, just as we choose to opt out of our employer-offered retirement options.

2. Disability needs to be updated so that those who are in need because of their own malfeasance are not eligible.

 

[Flash]

No. SS is a necessity for working people.
SS worked well for over 70 years with minor tweaks. SS needs a "fix" like raise the 62 "early" retirement age a year, and raise the "cap". Problem solved.

Also, make it a required program, no opting out for private plans. You can have both, but paying into SS should be required.

You have it wrong.

What is necessary is for people to plan for their retirement.

If they don't do it then that is their problem.

It is called personal responsibility. Something Liberals never seem to understand.

 

[Moonglow]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

The investment is not done for free you will have to pay a percentage of the current market value to be handled by the investor..Right now around 10-15%

 

[Moonglow]

You have it wrong.

What is necessary is for people to plan for their retirement.

If they don't do it then that is their problem.

It is called personal responsibility. Something Liberals never seem to understand.

The Great Depression had no problems wiping out retirement accounts for both Democrats and Republicans...

 

[The Irish Ram]

How about just doing away with the program?

Pay back the money to those that were forced to contribute and then call it quits.

You be responsible for your retirement and I be responsible for mine and we leave the friggin government out of it. Sounds good?

They plan to do that only without the paying back part....

 

[Winco]

How about just doing away with the program?

Pay back the money to those that were forced to contribute and then call it quits.

You be responsible for your retirement and I be responsible for mine and we leave the friggin government out of it. Sounds good?

What is necessary is for people to plan for their retirement.

If they don't do it then that is their problem.

You and I can probably take care of ourselves.
I, (and I assume you) have created your own, self planned retirement investments. Yeah for us.

But, if it wasn't for SS, there would be many, a majority, people currently over 75 that would have no retirement. SS was NEVER meant to be your retirement plan, but 50 years ago those people wouldn't have invested that extra money (by not paying into ss) they would have spent it.

Unlike you of course, who earns a lot and is responsible (I assume)

 

[Flash]

You and I can probably take care of ourselves.
I, (and I assume you) have created your own, self planned retirement investments. Yeah for us.

But, if it wasn't for SS, there would be many, a majority, people currently over 75 that would have no retirement. SS was NEVER meant to be your retirement plan, but 50 years ago those people wouldn't have invested that extra money (by not paying into ss) they would have spent it.

Unlike you of course, who earns a lot and is responsible (I assume)

How about this then?

We make SS voluntary?

If you don't want to be in the program then you don't have to be.

That way if you really trust the government bureaucrats to provide for your retirement then you can sign up for it.

If you don't save for retirement or if you don't get the government to do it for you then you are shit out of luck and it is your own damn fault?

Sound fair?

 

[pknopp]

People argue that if there are old folks who can not afford a place to live or food, that's too bad, that's on them. Well the facts are, we are never going to allow that to happen.

That noted, I would be open to reforms but not if it means investing into the corrupt markets.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Funny how social security is constantly running out of money but welfare isn't

 

[rightwinger]

The Republican position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't really an investment system, it's basically a ponzi scheme where the government taxes you, spends it on current payments, and legislatively (pseudo-arbitrarily) chooses how much to pay out and when. It would be better to abolish it and leave that money in the hands of people who can then use the free market to choose if, when, and how to invest and spend their money.

The Democrat position, in a nutshell: Social Security isn't just about retirement, it's really about providing a fundamental safety net. Disability is funded through Social Security also, and it would be unfathomable for the disabled to end up homeless and dying on the street. And the fact of the matter is that many people end up not being good at being disciplined enough to invest in their retirements adequately so if we take away Social Security we'll have tons of old people becoming homeless and dying on the streets from exposure and hunger. Social Security can be saved and made solvent with again with updated adjustments to the pseudo-arbitrary tax and spending levels.

The solution:
Keep Social Security and restructure it. One half of SS taxes go to funding disability programs. The other half gets privatized and directed to a 401k or IRA of the taxpayer's choosing. The result would be much like an employer sponsored retirement plan, except that the taxpayer would have more control to choose with whom and how their retirement funds are invested.

Why should it be so difficult for either side to agree to this?

How do you pay for the tens of millions currently drawing SS

 

[citygator]

How about just doing away with the program?

Pay back the money to those that were forced to contribute and then call it quits.

You be responsible for your retirement and I be responsible for mine and we leave the friggin government out of it. Sounds good?

Cuz people don’t want old people dying in the streets and clogging up street corners and hospitals just because they didn’t save.

 

[pknopp]

How do you pay for the tens of millions currently drawing SS

The same way we paid for the trillions used to bail out Wall Street.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

How do you pay for the tens of millions currently drawing SS

Force the moochers to repay student loans they signed up for

 

[rightwinger]

Funny how social security is constantly running out of money but welfare isn't

Social Security has been running much longer than welfare

 

[rightwinger]

The same way we paid for the trillions used to bail out Wall Street.

Not even close

 

[rightwinger]

How about this then?

We make SS voluntary?

If you don't want to be in the program then you don't have to be.

That way if you really trust the government bureaucrats to provide for your retirement then you can sign up for it.

If you don't save for retirement or if you don't get the government to do it for you then you are shit out of luck and it is your own damn fault?

Sound fair?

How do you pay for those who are retired or ready to retire?