5 ms·

So what do we do with people at the end of their working years, who, through bad luck or bad design, ended up with nothing. Do we stand by and let them suffer a

So what do we do with people at the end of their working years, who, through bad luck or bad design, ended up with nothing. Do we stand by and let them suffer and die?

muzz 15y ago
And do we realize that some may, at that point, turn to crime?
rmrm 15y ago
You could devise a means tested welfare for elderly people. There are a lot of perfectly wealthy, perfectly capable people who retire at 60 whatever for no apparent reason other than ss and tax advantaged accounts make it seem like its time. I am a big fan of retirement, and I think safety nets for the disadvantaged are a good idea. I don't think we need a retirement safety net, however, or to make a retirement an entitlement.
- digikata 15y ago
  I agree with means testing, but think it would have to be something that slowly phased in over a long period, and proportionally to smooth discontinuities so that people could shift their behavior to match expectations.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  The trouble with means testing is that you drain support for the program from the parts of the population with the most political clout. In other words, how long does SS last when rich people get nothing for what they put into it?
  - digikata 15y ago
    I've always viewed Social Security more like catastrophic insurance than a future income stream. What do you get out of insurance? Hopefully, nothing because if you find yourself needing to exercise it, something has not gone according to plan.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
cookiecaper 15y ago
This is not an issue for the government to address. I don't think that people should let them stand by and die, but good governments don't have the powers necessary to give out free money to people they think deserve it. Communities would be expected to handle it in the way most palatable to them. How much more room would Americans have for charity if their paychecks got 50% fatter due to eliminating income and payroll taxation?
- _delirium 15y ago
  There's an interesting argument from Friedrich Hayek (who's usually considered libertarian-leaning) that that approach is actually less pro-individual-liberty than a government safety net is, because it coerces people to stay in collectivist-type communities like ethnic groups, churches, etc., even if they would prefer to leave them, due to the dependence on the safety nets those groups provide. He argues that having a minimal government safety net would give people more freedom to choose their associations within society, since e.g. leaving the Mormon church would no longer mean losing your main safety net.

So what do we do with people at the end of their working years, who, through bad luck or bad design, ended up with nothing. Do we stand by and let them suffer and die?

muzz 15y ago

And do we realize that some may, at that point, turn to crime?

rmrm 15y ago

You could devise a means tested welfare for elderly people. There are a lot of perfectly wealthy, perfectly capable people who retire at 60 whatever for no apparent reason other than ss and tax advantaged accounts make it seem like its time. I am a big fan of retirement, and I think safety nets for the disadvantaged are a good idea. I don't think we need a retirement safety net, however, or to make a retirement an entitlement.

digikata 15y ago
I agree with means testing, but think it would have to be something that slowly phased in over a long period, and proportionally to smooth discontinuities so that people could shift their behavior to match expectations.
ChrisLTD 15y ago
The trouble with means testing is that you drain support for the program from the parts of the population with the most political clout. In other words, how long does SS last when rich people get nothing for what they put into it?
- digikata 15y ago
  I've always viewed Social Security more like catastrophic insurance than a future income stream. What do you get out of insurance? Hopefully, nothing because if you find yourself needing to exercise it, something has not gone according to plan.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

cookiecaper 15y ago

This is not an issue for the government to address. I don't think that people should let them stand by and die, but good governments don't have the powers necessary to give out free money to people they think deserve it. Communities would be expected to handle it in the way most palatable to them. How much more room would Americans have for charity if their paychecks got 50% fatter due to eliminating income and payroll taxation?

_delirium 15y ago
There's an interesting argument from Friedrich Hayek (who's usually considered libertarian-leaning) that that approach is actually less pro-individual-liberty than a government safety net is, because it coerces people to stay in collectivist-type communities like ethnic groups, churches, etc., even if they would prefer to leave them, due to the dependence on the safety nets those groups provide. He argues that having a minimal government safety net would give people more freedom to choose their associations within society, since e.g. leaving the Mormon church would no longer mean losing your main safety net.