DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages

**brraverishhh** · 08-04-2011, 12:27 AM

If it were up to me, Dis, we'd offer an option to current beneficiaries of continuing with the program as is or opting out and taking a tax credit for the remainder of any contributions plus, say, 10%. For those who have not started receiving benefits but have 25 or more years in contributions they'd get the same option with a reduced benefit but also be allowed to contribute up to 10% of their wages to a retirement plan tax free (like an IRA but without the contribution cap). For those with less than 25 years paid in they wouldn't get an option on receiving benefits but they would get the tax credit and be allowed to contribute up to 15% of their wages tax free.

What you would do is with this is increase the demand on the trust fund.
Social Security is insurance, insurance works because people don't know the future. The guy who pays into Social Security for 45 years, and dies at 64, never collects a nickel, but the person who lives to 110 collects many times what they put in. It's there when you need it.
If it were possible to withdraw a lump sum, then people with terminal diseases would withdraw lump sums, people who faced financial difficulty might also be tempted to withdraw lump sums, and later end up on welfare, instead of Social Security, (we aren't letting people starve to death are we?).
All these options increase the demand on funds.
And tax credits for savings increase savings amongst the people who need it least, and do nothing for the truly financially strapped.

If you did away with Social Security, then senior poverty would increase, along with the money spent on welfare programs for seniors.
Seniors, for the most part don't work, and live off someone else, be it their investments, or like in the old days, they move in with one of their kids.

For nothing more than the peace of mind of some folks I could also see establishing certain funds in which only "secure" investments (Treasuries) are allowed to be purchased or which are insured by the government up to a certain level. This would resolve the unease that a lot of people have with investing for retirement on the open market while still keeping the thieves in Congress from getting their hands on the funds. This is exactly what the Trust does now.
The alternative to Treasuries, is private issues, which can default, and which would have to be selected by people on the government payroll, a scenario that is so open to abuse, that it has never been seriously considered.

08-04-2011, 12:27 AM	#26
brraverishhh Join Date Jan 2006 Posts 5,127 Senior Member	If it were up to me, Dis, we'd offer an option to current beneficiaries of continuing with the program as is or opting out and taking a tax credit for the remainder of any contributions plus, say, 10%. For those who have not started receiving benefits but have 25 or more years in contributions they'd get the same option with a reduced benefit but also be allowed to contribute up to 10% of their wages to a retirement plan tax free (like an IRA but without the contribution cap). For those with less than 25 years paid in they wouldn't get an option on receiving benefits but they would get the tax credit and be allowed to contribute up to 15% of their wages tax free. What you would do is with this is increase the demand on the trust fund. Social Security is insurance, insurance works because people don't know the future. The guy who pays into Social Security for 45 years, and dies at 64, never collects a nickel, but the person who lives to 110 collects many times what they put in. It's there when you need it. If it were possible to withdraw a lump sum, then people with terminal diseases would withdraw lump sums, people who faced financial difficulty might also be tempted to withdraw lump sums, and later end up on welfare, instead of Social Security, (we aren't letting people starve to death are we?). All these options increase the demand on funds. And tax credits for savings increase savings amongst the people who need it least, and do nothing for the truly financially strapped. If you did away with Social Security, then senior poverty would increase, along with the money spent on welfare programs for seniors. Seniors, for the most part don't work, and live off someone else, be it their investments, or like in the old days, they move in with one of their kids. For nothing more than the peace of mind of some folks I could also see establishing certain funds in which only "secure" investments (Treasuries) are allowed to be purchased or which are insured by the government up to a certain level. This would resolve the unease that a lot of people have with investing for retirement on the open market while still keeping the thieves in Congress from getting their hands on the funds. This is exactly what the Trust does now. The alternative to Treasuries, is private issues, which can default, and which would have to be selected by people on the government payroll, a scenario that is so open to abuse, that it has never been seriously considered.
	Quote