General Discussion

Proud Public Servant

(2,097 posts)

68. I want to see the math

Tue Oct 22, 2013, 06:56 PM

Oct 2013

Right now people under the age of 20 and people over the age of 50 constitute, taken together, more than half the population of the US. If we stipulate that those under 20 are dependent upon their elders, and those over 50 in your scheme are wholly dependent on those younger than themselves (for reasons I explain above), then you're talking about a minority of Americans supporting themselves and everyone else. What are you imagining the tax rates will be? And how is it going to keep going when the birthrate drops, as it inevitably will once people can't afford kids because they're supporting their parents and grandparents? There's no way this solves anything unless your goal is to consign everyone to lifelong poverty; for that goal, it's brilliantly conceived.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The only solution to the jobs problem is lower the Soc Sec age to age 50. [View all] CK_John Oct 2013 OP

nonsense. somebody has to pay into the system. scheming daemons Oct 2013 #1

By this reasoning...raise retirement age to 80 n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #5

by that reasoning, lower it to 18. scheming daemons Oct 2013 #12

Or you could raise wages n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #25

Lowering the workforce participation raises wages Recursion Oct 2013 #47

Not in an open immigration, open trade system Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #97

Labor force participation has been going down since 2007. former9thward Oct 2013 #114

Good data. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #116

We always find the money for war. Money is just a concept at the national level. CK_John Oct 2013 #7

Newsflash...it's not a 'concept' at the local level B2G Oct 2013 #10

Money is just a reality in my household. Throd Oct 2013 #11

LOL, is that why you love Calvin Klein? snooper2 Oct 2013 #15

I don't know what your are talking about? CK_John Oct 2013 #19

Aren't you CK John? snooper2 Oct 2013 #21

And what hell do I have to do with C Kline????? CK_John Oct 2013 #22

I thought CK stood for Calvin Klein snooper2 Oct 2013 #23

Jerk CK_John Oct 2013 #24

That wasn't very nice... snooper2 Oct 2013 #28

Ever hear of Louis CK? Lancero Oct 2013 #71

nope snooper2 Oct 2013 #73

He speaks Spanish so a lot of 'wringers hate him. seattle15 Oct 2013 #76

We didn't find money for war, that was paid for on credit. apnu Oct 2013 #107

Don't worry about it, money at the national level is just a concept. CK_John Oct 2013 #108

This makes a tighter labor market, which raises wages, which raises FICA revenues Recursion Oct 2013 #46

lowering the retirement age to 50 makes the number of people who work equal to those retired. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #81

Unless I have the math wrong, it cuts the labor pool by a third Recursion Oct 2013 #82

See post #80 lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #83

What else does "increased productivity" mean? Recursion Oct 2013 #84

Do you think that people would be okay with a 50% SS tax rate with no cap? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #85

Sure. If they're absorbing the retirees' current wages they still come out ahead Recursion Oct 2013 #86

Exactly fitman Oct 2013 #57

You forgot obnoxiousdrunk Oct 2013 #2

and eliminate the salary cap on SS deductions TeamPooka Oct 2013 #3

Actually, eliminating the salary cap is all we have to do. Squinch Oct 2013 #58

I support eliminating the salary cap - or raising it to, say, 500k RainDog Oct 2013 #79

Who is going to pay for it? leftynyc Oct 2013 #4

Lump of Labour Fallacy n/t Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #6

Automated pharmacy/driveless truck convoys coming soon. Lost millions of jobs. CK_John Oct 2013 #13

We already have driverless trucks DJ13 Oct 2013 #17

False analogy Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #36

Surely 45 would be better still? Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #8

We can't let the perfect destroy the possible. I think 50 is a possibility. CK_John Oct 2013 #14

And how old are you? B2G Oct 2013 #16

No, I'm 73. CK_John Oct 2013 #20

With no skin in the game. B2G Oct 2013 #33

So I could have retired in February! B2G Oct 2013 #9

You don't have retire but if you have been unemployed for 3 yr and over 50 it would be welcome.r CK_John Oct 2013 #18

If I don't leave the workforce, what does your plan accomplish? B2G Oct 2013 #32

Utter nonsense once again, just like the last post of this OP Coyotl Oct 2013 #26

Not really a solution, but I like the underlying concept. n/t Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #27

The underlying concept if fallacious Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #37

Nuh-uh. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #42

Whatever you say Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #43

Definitely not the solution. sinkingfeeling Oct 2013 #29

Because that is the age group that has the lowest unemployment rate in the country? frazzled Oct 2013 #30

The point is the 35-45 year olds take the jobs the 45-55 year olds leave Recursion Oct 2013 #49

Sorry, but not buying ... frazzled Oct 2013 #54

I don't really care which particular group is pushed out; our labor participation rate is too high Recursion Oct 2013 #55

Do you really think that many jobs are plug and play? Left2Tackle Oct 2013 #72

Overall much less human labor is required to maintain our standard of living Recursion Oct 2013 #74

Lump of Labour Fallacy Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #67

So, who takes the jobs previously done by 20 - 35 year olds? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #88

Most of them don't have jobs right now Recursion Oct 2013 #89

75% do have jobs, which means those jobs have to be filled. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #90

Oh come on, nobody seriously thinks this could happen Recursion Oct 2013 #91

It's a ridiculous idea for crushing productivity, shorting revenues and expanding outlays. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2013 #99

On a more serious note zipplewrath Oct 2013 #31

You make no sense. First you idea is a fantasy upaloopa Oct 2013 #38

Don't read too much in zipplewrath Oct 2013 #40

Yikes, 50 is a tad early, but a nice idea. a kennedy Oct 2013 #34

Do you have any mathematical evidence for this idea? phleshdef Oct 2013 #35

Ending this "austerity" bullshit would go a long way to solving it, too. GoCubsGo Oct 2013 #39

I'll second this motion ileus Oct 2013 #41

Haha, the age is likely to go up, what about addressing Internet retail? Southside Oct 2013 #44

I'm hugely in favor of this Recursion Oct 2013 #45

We could fund it if corps and the 1% pay more in taxes. Avalux Oct 2013 #48

I'm willing to bet it would be self-funding Recursion Oct 2013 #50

Actually if you taxed the top 5% at 100%, it would not fund cutting retirement age to 50. Hoyt Oct 2013 #53

Agreed. This would help. closeupready Oct 2013 #51

So get this: the GOP openly admits to wanting to destroy SS. closeupready Oct 2013 #52

Yes! More poverty and downward mobility for all! Proud Public Servant Oct 2013 #56

The military and the NYPD have a 20yr retirement policy. Seems to work pretty good. CK_John Oct 2013 #59

after which they get another job! Proud Public Servant Oct 2013 #60

I have thought about it quite a lot. This Cyber-era can provide jobs for only 1/2 the population CK_John Oct 2013 #62

I want to see the math Proud Public Servant Oct 2013 #68

Your last sentence doesn't follow Recursion Oct 2013 #70

Getting out of the box of the status quo is critical TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #61

This, along with dramatically raising benefits, would definately help. nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #63

I would like too add my2 cents- ruffburr Oct 2013 #64

If we do infra structure, how long have I heard that, We talk but nothing happens. CK_John Oct 2013 #65

Not sure 50 is the right age... 99Forever Oct 2013 #66

The RW openly wants to do away with SS. Instead of fighting to enhance SS CK_John Oct 2013 #69

The mind numbing corporate propaganda is ubiquitous now. woo me with science Oct 2013 #75

What proof is offered that this plan would work? mythology Oct 2013 #78

I'll pass... 99Forever Oct 2013 #93

Basic math is not pretzel logic, and not your long suit Proud Public Servant Oct 2013 #95

Blah, blah, blah. 99Forever Oct 2013 #98

that's too young. women live to sge 81 on average Liberal_in_LA Oct 2013 #77

Math was an elective where you come from? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #80

My favorite couse was non Euclidean geometry. nt CK_John Oct 2013 #100

"non" being the operative word. lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #118

Confused by the name here is a reference. CK_John Oct 2013 #119

that is bizarre. besides, many baby boomers are so financially fucked Pretzel_Warrior Oct 2013 #87

And also mandatory reductions in the work week with the same or higher pay eridani Oct 2013 #92

50 is a bit too early Joel thakkar Oct 2013 #94

There is no "only" solution. LWolf Oct 2013 #96

I started collecting a pension at age 52 Courtesy Flush Oct 2013 #101

But look at Detroit and all UAW retirees who's pension were greatly reduced, CK_John Oct 2013 #102

What piddly amount would you get at age 50? dkf Oct 2013 #103

The same you get at 65. Formula can be changed. CK_John Oct 2013 #104

Then you need to change the contribution. This is an insurance system with actuarial computations. dkf Oct 2013 #105

The world is not a perfect globe, rules are spongible. Perfect is the enemy of the possible, CK_John Oct 2013 #106

Perfect? Try reasonable FreeJoe Oct 2013 #109

40% payroll tax and 40% federal income tax and 10% state tax dkf Oct 2013 #110

Retiring would NOT be required, knowing it was an option would be its greatest benefit. CK_John Oct 2013 #111

You'd get what? A whopping $200/mo at that age? NickB79 Oct 2013 #112

It will have be the same as 65 is now about 1200 per month. But if we have an CK_John Oct 2013 #113

Add tens of millions of new users, keep payout the same NickB79 Oct 2013 #115

And, raise taxes on the rich and cut the military budget by 60%. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2013 #117