3 ms·

Young people have all those same cash flow issues, but are also our future (if they have kids). In terms of who to subsidize, it should be the youngs, not the o

Young people have all those same cash flow issues, but are also our future (if they have kids). In terms of who to subsidize, it should be the youngs, not the olds.

sarchertech 1y ago
The assumption is that if you’re 25 and you need money you’re likely healthy enough to work 40+ hours a week. Much less likely if you’re 67+.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Does the assumption that hard work = ability to raise a family match the reality of what 20s are experiencing today?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
kube-system 1y ago
Young people aren't going to be able to afford a child with a couple percent payroll tax cut. They need healthcare, time off of work, and a decent school to send their child to.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Sure, but are you making the argument that we shouldn't do something because in fact we'd also need to do even more too. Yes do all of those things. Demographics are destiny. We need young people to have kids.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    If we cut Social Security young people aren't gonna be able to have children because they're gonna have to spend more time and money taking care of their parents. Social safety nets make it easier for people to live a comfortable life. Social Security would be completely solvent if we didn't make poor people pay to support other poor people, and instead tax rich people for it. It's built on a regressive tax, and the wealthy don't pay jack shit.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      >poor people pay to support other poor people So we actually agree. Let's not make poor youngs (nearly all of them) pay for olds (rich or poor). I think we should eliminate this sub-optimal situation immediately based on the harm to the payors.
      - kube-system 1y ago
        > Let's not make poor youngs (nearly all of them) pay for olds (rich or poor). The problem is, this implies that whatever system you're advocating for must force people to prove that they're poor. These requirements don't come out of the sky and get magically enacted by some fairy, they're gonna be an active by bureaucratic process. That's a non-starter because then the system isn't universal anymore. It only serves people that are able to reach that bar. The poorest and most destitute among us, lack the ability to produce documentation. Many are disabled, uneducated, destitute, have dementia, or any number of other problems that affect the people who need help the most. It should be easy for anyone who's paid into Social Security to get their benefits back out of Social Security. They shouldn't need to prove anything else. The easiest situation is to just force people who make more than $176,100 to pay their fair share.

Young people have all those same cash flow issues, but are also our future (if they have kids). In terms of who to subsidize, it should be the youngs, not the olds.

sarchertech 1y ago

The assumption is that if you’re 25 and you need money you’re likely healthy enough to work 40+ hours a week. Much less likely if you’re 67+.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Does the assumption that hard work = ability to raise a family match the reality of what 20s are experiencing today?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

kube-system 1y ago

Young people aren't going to be able to afford a child with a couple percent payroll tax cut. They need healthcare, time off of work, and a decent school to send their child to.

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Sure, but are you making the argument that we shouldn't do something because in fact we'd also need to do even more too. Yes do all of those things. Demographics are destiny. We need young people to have kids.
- kube-system 1y ago
  If we cut Social Security young people aren't gonna be able to have children because they're gonna have to spend more time and money taking care of their parents. Social safety nets make it easier for people to live a comfortable life. Social Security would be completely solvent if we didn't make poor people pay to support other poor people, and instead tax rich people for it. It's built on a regressive tax, and the wealthy don't pay jack shit.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    >poor people pay to support other poor people So we actually agree. Let's not make poor youngs (nearly all of them) pay for olds (rich or poor). I think we should eliminate this sub-optimal situation immediately based on the harm to the payors.
    - kube-system 1y ago
      > Let's not make poor youngs (nearly all of them) pay for olds (rich or poor). The problem is, this implies that whatever system you're advocating for must force people to prove that they're poor. These requirements don't come out of the sky and get magically enacted by some fairy, they're gonna be an active by bureaucratic process. That's a non-starter because then the system isn't universal anymore. It only serves people that are able to reach that bar. The poorest and most destitute among us, lack the ability to produce documentation. Many are disabled, uneducated, destitute, have dementia, or any number of other problems that affect the people who need help the most. It should be easy for anyone who's paid into Social Security to get their benefits back out of Social Security. They shouldn't need to prove anything else. The easiest situation is to just force people who make more than $176,100 to pay their fair share.