Welfare vs Social Security

[Deleted member 159002]

It's not about making the non-wealthy's lives less comfortable. SS was enacted with intent that most people would die before drawing too much from it. That was instrumental to it's solvency.

The Social Security website lays out the problem decently.

In 1940, only 54% of men reached 65 and then they lived another 13 years. Now 72% of men reach 65 and they live another 15 years. Women have gone from 60% to 83% reaching 65 and life spans have gone from 15 to 20 years post-65.

So a program that relied on roughly 55-60% of the population reaching the draw down age now has ~77% of the population reaching that age and are living on average 3 years longer.

To bring the age groups back in line, we'd have to raise the age to a point that ~60% of people reach. You can bump up the taxes if you want but it doesn't change that you have 33% more of your population reaching the draw down age.

I know what the original intent of SS was, and that FDR wanted to fund it the way it was funded because he didn't want the program to be a "socialist" giveaway. I don't see any reason why we should hold the original intent of SS as some static ideal.

 

[ultramanhyata]

This thread is in a dead heat with "Left vs. Right, in housing" for intellectual Special Olympic gold.

 

[panamaican]

I know what the original intent of SS was, and that FDR wanted to fund it the way it was funded because he didn't want the program to be a "socialist" giveaway. I don't see any reason why we should hold the original intent of SS as some static ideal.

I don't see any reason to believe that the original intent is invalid.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

I don't see any reason to believe that the original intent is invalid.

Why do you oppose lowering the retirement age, increasing benefits, and removing the cap? Do you think it's unfeasible? If so, explain why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't see any reason to believe that the original intent is invalid.

It's not that it's invalid; it's just that it probably makes sense to make the program better today. It's been a big success at its goal (of reducing poverty among the elderly), and it's hugely popular. We're in much better financial shape than we were in when it was implemented.

 

[djacobox372]

Social Security has a surplus/balance of $2.3 TRILLION.

You have to project out decades to say: "it's running out of money," and we all know it's impossible to predict the financial situation of the country or any program out that far.

This has been a tactic since the program started, if the right can convince you that you're aren't going to get the $$ you will stop fighting to keep the program.