3 ms·

You don't know anything about his "hand-wavey logic", or you'd know right away that it's not "320 million Americans". It's only adults from age 18-65 (or whenev

by beat 8y ago

You don't know anything about his "hand-wavey logic", or you'd know right away that it's not "320 million Americans". It's only adults from age 18-65 (or whenever they choose to retire to Social Security, presumably).

chrisco255 8y ago
It would be whatever bastardized form of it Congress passes and by the way, Social Security is already on the path to insolvency. It's still a multi-trillion dollar proposal, a huge economic experiment that could easily end in catastrophe and not be easily reversible (as people would come to depend on payments, try taking that away from them). It's batshit crazy.
- beat 8y ago
  In his book, Andrew Yang points out that one of the major factors damaging Social Security right now is a sharp rise (like a doubling) in disability cases. And the amount of people on disability maps directly to areas of economic depression and underemployment. Basically, it's become an alternative form of long-term unemployment for people who are unable to find work. And worse, since getting a job will likely lead to losing benefits, it actively discourages employment and makes people think of themselves as broken failures. That all said, what is your alternative? Let huge swaths of the country degenerate into poverty and despair? Wait for them to vote an actual fascist into office? Or riot? Given a choice between higher taxes and civil war, I will gladly choose higher taxes.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Sensationalize much? Taxes wouldn't just be a little bit higher under this proposal they'd be double what they are today...in the name of social welfare. And when that ruins the economy, you'll be dealing with another Venezuela. Social security isn't on its way to insolvency because of disability expansion...it's on its way to insolvency because it was designed in an age when we had an average of three children per female and life expectancy was shorter. Now that we're down to two and possibly dropping...there's less workers per retiree.

by beat 8y ago

chrisco255 8y ago

It would be whatever bastardized form of it Congress passes and by the way, Social Security is already on the path to insolvency. It's still a multi-trillion dollar proposal, a huge economic experiment that could easily end in catastrophe and not be easily reversible (as people would come to depend on payments, try taking that away from them). It's batshit crazy.

beat 8y ago
In his book, Andrew Yang points out that one of the major factors damaging Social Security right now is a sharp rise (like a doubling) in disability cases. And the amount of people on disability maps directly to areas of economic depression and underemployment. Basically, it's become an alternative form of long-term unemployment for people who are unable to find work. And worse, since getting a job will likely lead to losing benefits, it actively discourages employment and makes people think of themselves as broken failures. That all said, what is your alternative? Let huge swaths of the country degenerate into poverty and despair? Wait for them to vote an actual fascist into office? Or riot? Given a choice between higher taxes and civil war, I will gladly choose higher taxes.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Sensationalize much? Taxes wouldn't just be a little bit higher under this proposal they'd be double what they are today...in the name of social welfare. And when that ruins the economy, you'll be dealing with another Venezuela. Social security isn't on its way to insolvency because of disability expansion...it's on its way to insolvency because it was designed in an age when we had an average of three children per female and life expectancy was shorter. Now that we're down to two and possibly dropping...there's less workers per retiree.