5 ms·

Is there a solution to this "problem" that doesn't involve taking the hard-earned wealth away from people 55 and older who carefully planned and saved so they c

Is there a solution to this "problem" that doesn't involve taking the hard-earned wealth away from people 55 and older who carefully planned and saved so they can enjoy themselves?

b_tterc_p 7y ago
You say that, but the reality is that the 55 year olds are largely doing the opposite, taking from the young and healthy to support their Social Security benefits, their insurance, etc.
- Falkon1313 7y ago
  The 55 year olds aren't taking from the young via Social Security and Medicare, they already payed in and are still paying in. The 65+s also already payed in and they're just getting back what they paid for.
- fuzzfactor 7y ago
  It's getting bad over here in the USA. We have propaganda about things like this, but direct observation has been made over a number of decades and today's 55 year olds who will one day start collecting Social Security Retirement and/or begin benefitting more from their health insurance than they are paying in, are still not behaving very differently than 55 year olds at the time going back quite a bit into the previous century. These are the 55 year olds who are still paying in to their respective Social Security and insurance plans, otherwise they would not be the ones that will receive significant benefits later. Of course eventually as each individual reaches 65 and is eligible for full benefits, the true actual worth and buying power of those benefits has always been gradually declining. To the point where you might have been better off without having these earnings immediately removed from your pay right off the top all along by the enforcing authorities. And without having any need for a Social Security number. The fundamental flaw with our Social Security is that the entire bureaucracy, infrastructure, business cash flow, collections & distributions is based on taxes on income rather than commerce. Like a lot of things, but with SS it's even worse since only the lowest-income workers have their entire income taxed. As higher-earning pay levels are achieved, a decreasing percentage of earned income is taxed for SS purposes. Regardless, with SS as one of the UBI systems with proven long-term functionality, it's too bad the full untaxed BI is still only universal for the 65 & over paid members in good standing, and only if they actually quit earning other income and truly retire. And too bad it's not enough for a senior citizen to live on, so it's not up to quite basic levels but it's something. This is because there are bigger tentacles that have been reaching into your pockets during your working years starting decades earlier in the 20th century than the FICA has been doing it. If you do the math considering these resources, there is no excuse for not having gradually extended full benefits to much younger ages in a direct march toward full UBI. These have been the most highly productive hard working people in the most prosperous country in the modern history of my home planet. Same with Medicare, it could have gradually reduced age of eligibility and achieved higher levels of health coverage for a more universal portion of the citizens far ahead of any less propsperous nation. This all would have only required that an affordable portion of the resources were invested wisely to the advantage of the citizens from the outset, and only somewhat wisely at that. Markets can do amazing things, enough wealth was removed from working citizens before Nixon to have been leveraged to full UBI sometime between then & now, even using a no-brainer approach. And when there's no excuse, you tend to get a lot of propaganda. Even if you work for Apple, be careful about reality distortion effects.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
Yes, leave the hard-earned wealth and take away the grifted wealth from billionaires who got bailed out by the government and continue to be subsidized by the FED and the US taxpayer.

Is there a solution to this "problem" that doesn't involve taking the hard-earned wealth away from people 55 and older who carefully planned and saved so they can enjoy themselves?

b_tterc_p 7y ago

You say that, but the reality is that the 55 year olds are largely doing the opposite, taking from the young and healthy to support their Social Security benefits, their insurance, etc.

Falkon1313 7y ago
The 55 year olds aren't taking from the young via Social Security and Medicare, they already payed in and are still paying in. The 65+s also already payed in and they're just getting back what they paid for.
fuzzfactor 7y ago
It's getting bad over here in the USA. We have propaganda about things like this, but direct observation has been made over a number of decades and today's 55 year olds who will one day start collecting Social Security Retirement and/or begin benefitting more from their health insurance than they are paying in, are still not behaving very differently than 55 year olds at the time going back quite a bit into the previous century. These are the 55 year olds who are still paying in to their respective Social Security and insurance plans, otherwise they would not be the ones that will receive significant benefits later. Of course eventually as each individual reaches 65 and is eligible for full benefits, the true actual worth and buying power of those benefits has always been gradually declining. To the point where you might have been better off without having these earnings immediately removed from your pay right off the top all along by the enforcing authorities. And without having any need for a Social Security number. The fundamental flaw with our Social Security is that the entire bureaucracy, infrastructure, business cash flow, collections & distributions is based on taxes on income rather than commerce. Like a lot of things, but with SS it's even worse since only the lowest-income workers have their entire income taxed. As higher-earning pay levels are achieved, a decreasing percentage of earned income is taxed for SS purposes. Regardless, with SS as one of the UBI systems with proven long-term functionality, it's too bad the full untaxed BI is still only universal for the 65 & over paid members in good standing, and only if they actually quit earning other income and truly retire. And too bad it's not enough for a senior citizen to live on, so it's not up to quite basic levels but it's something. This is because there are bigger tentacles that have been reaching into your pockets during your working years starting decades earlier in the 20th century than the FICA has been doing it. If you do the math considering these resources, there is no excuse for not having gradually extended full benefits to much younger ages in a direct march toward full UBI. These have been the most highly productive hard working people in the most prosperous country in the modern history of my home planet. Same with Medicare, it could have gradually reduced age of eligibility and achieved higher levels of health coverage for a more universal portion of the citizens far ahead of any less propsperous nation. This all would have only required that an affordable portion of the resources were invested wisely to the advantage of the citizens from the outset, and only somewhat wisely at that. Markets can do amazing things, enough wealth was removed from working citizens before Nixon to have been leveraged to full UBI sometime between then & now, even using a no-brainer approach. And when there's no excuse, you tend to get a lot of propaganda. Even if you work for Apple, be careful about reality distortion effects.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

Yes, leave the hard-earned wealth and take away the grifted wealth from billionaires who got bailed out by the government and continue to be subsidized by the FED and the US taxpayer.