6 ms·

As a millennial, I do. There are just too many easy mitigations here that will extend life several decades: - Remove the cap and tax income above $120k, just l

As a millennial, I do. There are just too many easy mitigations here that will extend life several decades: - Remove the cap and tax income above $120k, just like medicare and income tax - Increased tax rate, possibly just on payroll not income (the employer-paid portion) - Limited forms of means-testing (Maybe, attenuated survivor benefits as your estate value clears a certain high mark like $3 million) - Eliminate "early" retirement ages and force the "full" age - Extending minimum retirement age to 70 and beyond

misterbwong 8y ago
Came here to say the same thing. There are some very sensible fixes to extend SS to younger folks. Medicare, however, is another story.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- maxerickson 8y ago
  The easy way to fix Medicare is to get medical costs under control.
maerF0x0 8y ago
means testing is super unfair to those who sacrificed lifestyle in their youth to save for retirement. Consider the person that could have, but didnt, live a lavish lifestyle and instead responsibly saved. Then a benefit (which they paid into, and maybe rely upon) is removed after the fact? Bad news.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Unfairness is arguably in the eye of the beholder. If someone “responsibly saved” then they are not relying on the benefit as much as someone who didn’t or couldn’t save. Is it fair that a person who does not need financial aid receives it anyway?
  - kingbirdy 8y ago
    But this then incentivizes people to not save and spend their money while young instead, on the assumption that social security will help them when they're old, leading to even larger burdens on the system.
- encoderer 8y ago
  Social Security is not a retirement account. We're paying today for the current generation of retirees so we don't have a class of elderly homeless eating cat food and dying in our streets. Means testing is consistent with this outcome.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > so we don't have a class of elderly homeless eating cat food and dying in our streets. Too bad we already do, and the number seems to be increasing rapidly: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/americas-aging-homeless-old-and-on-the-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/americas-aging-homeles... So if Social Security isn't helping with that, what other excuses are there?
    - allthenews 8y ago
      The fact that elderly homeless people exist does not imply that current social security policy does nothing. Presumably, if we did away with SS, there would be more on the streets.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Incentives are much more powerful than intent. It isn't meaningful to talk about intent when assessing the likely outcome of an economic initiative. I can't emphasise this as strongly as I'd like to; in economics we want fairness and the incentives to align, but if they are not going to then incentives trump fairness. Fairness with poor incentives drives bad outcomes, and usually reveals that 'fairness' is 'fairness for some in groups, at the expense of the rest'. Resources are no longer growing as quickly relative to population as they were in the 70s and 80s. We need normal people to make uncomfortable decisions _not_ to consume. Otherwise there are not enough resources when they grow old. Incentivising spending in the present is not a clever idea, even if it isn't intended.
  - prklmn 8y ago
    Means testing gets you nowhere because there are so few people who would qualify as too rich- it would be less than a drop in the bucket "saved." It would be purely symbolic, and it's another way for those in power to say that we punish the rich and social security is a wealth transfer to the poor, then use that as a reason to abolish it. The idea of means testing is totally counterproductive to your goal. Also as an aside, there are wealthy elderly people already not cashing their social security checks, you just don't know it because it makes nearly no difference in the scheme of things.
- jhayward 8y ago
  The marginal value of each dollar of social security benefit is smaller for those with independent wealth. Means testing is a way of making sure that each SSI dollar is highly valued.
- arebop 8y ago
  If it's not a hard cutoff as suggested upthread but just a progressive phaseout then the responsible person still has a reward and yet the benefits can be focused on the needy. I'm a proponent of BI but I have to point out that means-testing doesn't imply perverse incentives.
- krapp 8y ago
  >Consider the person that could have, but didnt, live a lavish lifestyle and instead responsibly saved. Then a benefit (which they paid into, and maybe rely upon) is removed after the fact? Bad news. Such a person wouldn't be able to live a "lavish lifestyle" with the benefits alone - that's not what they're for. And if they saved up throughout their entire life then they wouldn't depend on those benefits in the first place, and could likely live far more lavishly than the average recipient, anyway.
  - maerF0x0 8y ago
    If I am paying into SS in my 20s and expect to get, say, $1000 per month in my 60s, and I responsibly design my 401k savings etc around that promise, and then have it taken away because I saved more than the average person then I will have a $1000 hole in my budget . Itd be no different than a bank keeping the contents of my savings account and giving me the excuse "we changed the rules"
    - krapp 8y ago
      Except Social Security isn't a bank account, nor is it really a "promise," at least not a promise of a specific return on investment. One could argue that designing your financial expectations around that program remaining exactly as is for the forseeable future given that history wouldn't be reasonable - any number of events could lead to that $1000 hole in your budget. Who's "keeping your savings" when stocks fall or inflation rises? But, if the feasibility of the Social Security program as a whole depends on restructuring the program, as it has in the past, then I believe it's better for society that those cuts be distributed to those who can best afford them.
lev99 8y ago
> - Eliminate "early" retirement ages and force the "full" age I'd really be interested in seeing the math on this. If a person retires 2 years early (receive 86% of benefits) that person's total social security withdraw should be equal to someone that retired at normal age 13 years after retirement. With a retirement age of 67 and considering a life expectancy of 80, retiring early looks like favors the goverment on average. There are additional factors to consider: * How much more a person will pay into social security while continuing to work longer. * If the last two years are the highest earning then it can increase the base payout. * Does retirement age have an impact of life expectancy? * Does a person's current health have an impact of if they decide to draw early? * I don't really know how inflation changes social security, but it seems relevant to consider.
dgzl 8y ago
As a millennial-ish, I think the government should stop stealing my money and make Social Security opt-in only.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  As a millennial, I think the problem with that approach is that no one would opt-in, but everyone would feel entitled to receive the benefits if they failed to save enough for their own retirement (and realized it).
  - dgzl 8y ago
    Yes, I think the entire point of social security is to help people who don't have the foresight to help themselves. Since the program is dysfunctional and our representatives continuously borrow against the program, who is it really helping?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  As a millennial, I take issue with anyone who mischaracterizes taxes as theft for ideological gain.
  - dgzl 8y ago
    This country was literally founded because of excessive and tyrannical taxes brought by the British empire. How long until America becomes that empire? It's funny, I see this meme sometimes around tax day: "Well, I just paid my taxes. Those roads should be fixed anytime now". It's funny because the excuses people use (my roads!) to justify reckless and out-of-control taxation ($21T debt, that's T for Trillion) are almost never at the head of where the tax revenue is actually spent. As a US government contractor, governments are great at overspending and under-delivering.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "This country was literally founded because of excessive and tyrannical taxes brought by the British empire. How long until America becomes that empire?" There were far, far more inputs to that than just "taxes are bad". "As a US government contractor, governments are great at overspending and under-delivering." And as a contractor, you're part of that problem.

misterbwong 8y ago

Came here to say the same thing. There are some very sensible fixes to extend SS to younger folks. Medicare, however, is another story.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 8y ago
The easy way to fix Medicare is to get medical costs under control.

maerF0x0 8y ago

means testing is super unfair to those who sacrificed lifestyle in their youth to save for retirement. Consider the person that could have, but didnt, live a lavish lifestyle and instead responsibly saved. Then a benefit (which they paid into, and maybe rely upon) is removed after the fact? Bad news.

ryandrake 8y ago
Unfairness is arguably in the eye of the beholder. If someone “responsibly saved” then they are not relying on the benefit as much as someone who didn’t or couldn’t save. Is it fair that a person who does not need financial aid receives it anyway?
- kingbirdy 8y ago
  But this then incentivizes people to not save and spend their money while young instead, on the assumption that social security will help them when they're old, leading to even larger burdens on the system.
encoderer 8y ago
Social Security is not a retirement account. We're paying today for the current generation of retirees so we don't have a class of elderly homeless eating cat food and dying in our streets. Means testing is consistent with this outcome.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > so we don't have a class of elderly homeless eating cat food and dying in our streets. Too bad we already do, and the number seems to be increasing rapidly: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/americas-aging-homeless-old-and-on-the-street.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/us/americas-aging-homeles... So if Social Security isn't helping with that, what other excuses are there?
  - allthenews 8y ago
    The fact that elderly homeless people exist does not imply that current social security policy does nothing. Presumably, if we did away with SS, there would be more on the streets.
- roenxi 8y ago
  Incentives are much more powerful than intent. It isn't meaningful to talk about intent when assessing the likely outcome of an economic initiative. I can't emphasise this as strongly as I'd like to; in economics we want fairness and the incentives to align, but if they are not going to then incentives trump fairness. Fairness with poor incentives drives bad outcomes, and usually reveals that 'fairness' is 'fairness for some in groups, at the expense of the rest'. Resources are no longer growing as quickly relative to population as they were in the 70s and 80s. We need normal people to make uncomfortable decisions _not_ to consume. Otherwise there are not enough resources when they grow old. Incentivising spending in the present is not a clever idea, even if it isn't intended.
- prklmn 8y ago
  Means testing gets you nowhere because there are so few people who would qualify as too rich- it would be less than a drop in the bucket "saved." It would be purely symbolic, and it's another way for those in power to say that we punish the rich and social security is a wealth transfer to the poor, then use that as a reason to abolish it. The idea of means testing is totally counterproductive to your goal. Also as an aside, there are wealthy elderly people already not cashing their social security checks, you just don't know it because it makes nearly no difference in the scheme of things.
jhayward 8y ago
The marginal value of each dollar of social security benefit is smaller for those with independent wealth. Means testing is a way of making sure that each SSI dollar is highly valued.
arebop 8y ago
If it's not a hard cutoff as suggested upthread but just a progressive phaseout then the responsible person still has a reward and yet the benefits can be focused on the needy. I'm a proponent of BI but I have to point out that means-testing doesn't imply perverse incentives.
krapp 8y ago
>Consider the person that could have, but didnt, live a lavish lifestyle and instead responsibly saved. Then a benefit (which they paid into, and maybe rely upon) is removed after the fact? Bad news. Such a person wouldn't be able to live a "lavish lifestyle" with the benefits alone - that's not what they're for. And if they saved up throughout their entire life then they wouldn't depend on those benefits in the first place, and could likely live far more lavishly than the average recipient, anyway.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  If I am paying into SS in my 20s and expect to get, say, $1000 per month in my 60s, and I responsibly design my 401k savings etc around that promise, and then have it taken away because I saved more than the average person then I will have a $1000 hole in my budget . Itd be no different than a bank keeping the contents of my savings account and giving me the excuse "we changed the rules"
  - krapp 8y ago
    Except Social Security isn't a bank account, nor is it really a "promise," at least not a promise of a specific return on investment. One could argue that designing your financial expectations around that program remaining exactly as is for the forseeable future given that history wouldn't be reasonable - any number of events could lead to that $1000 hole in your budget. Who's "keeping your savings" when stocks fall or inflation rises? But, if the feasibility of the Social Security program as a whole depends on restructuring the program, as it has in the past, then I believe it's better for society that those cuts be distributed to those who can best afford them.

lev99 8y ago

> - Eliminate "early" retirement ages and force the "full" age I'd really be interested in seeing the math on this. If a person retires 2 years early (receive 86% of benefits) that person's total social security withdraw should be equal to someone that retired at normal age 13 years after retirement. With a retirement age of 67 and considering a life expectancy of 80, retiring early looks like favors the goverment on average. There are additional factors to consider: * How much more a person will pay into social security while continuing to work longer. * If the last two years are the highest earning then it can increase the base payout. * Does retirement age have an impact of life expectancy? * Does a person's current health have an impact of if they decide to draw early? * I don't really know how inflation changes social security, but it seems relevant to consider.

dgzl 8y ago

As a millennial-ish, I think the government should stop stealing my money and make Social Security opt-in only.

craftyguy 8y ago
As a millennial, I think the problem with that approach is that no one would opt-in, but everyone would feel entitled to receive the benefits if they failed to save enough for their own retirement (and realized it).
- dgzl 8y ago
  Yes, I think the entire point of social security is to help people who don't have the foresight to help themselves. Since the program is dysfunctional and our representatives continuously borrow against the program, who is it really helping?
s73v3r_ 8y ago
As a millennial, I take issue with anyone who mischaracterizes taxes as theft for ideological gain.
- dgzl 8y ago
  This country was literally founded because of excessive and tyrannical taxes brought by the British empire. How long until America becomes that empire? It's funny, I see this meme sometimes around tax day: "Well, I just paid my taxes. Those roads should be fixed anytime now". It's funny because the excuses people use (my roads!) to justify reckless and out-of-control taxation ($21T debt, that's T for Trillion) are almost never at the head of where the tax revenue is actually spent. As a US government contractor, governments are great at overspending and under-delivering.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "This country was literally founded because of excessive and tyrannical taxes brought by the British empire. How long until America becomes that empire?" There were far, far more inputs to that than just "taxes are bad". "As a US government contractor, governments are great at overspending and under-delivering." And as a contractor, you're part of that problem.