General Discussion

dkf

(37,305 posts)

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

Wed Oct 23, 2013, 01:20 PM

Oct 2013

You can't just change the benefits and expect everything to work. Social security has a defined funding.

It is only slightly redistributional for the bottom, 105% at the lower 20th IIRC.

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