Social Security: Whereas

Whereas I am under 50...
Whereas I understand that I will most likely not get any money from
Social Security unless something bad happens...
Whereas I think that people who are receiving Social Security benefits
should continue to receive said benefits because it is wrong to change
their contract...
Whereas congress-criters lack testicular fortitude...

I would support the following measures:

Raising the retirement age to 70.
Immediately refunding 50% of the money that was confiscated from me
under the guise of FICA to let me invest as I wish. This money is now
referred to as "retirement monies".
Allowing me to withdraw the retirement monies, without penalty, at and
after age 60.
Allowing me to invest 20% of money confiscated from me under the guise of FICA.
Providing a tax credit for buying life insurance. This would go to my
heirs to "make up" for possible "loss of monies" from poor investing
and for the equivalent of survivor benefits.
Providing a tax credit for buying long term care insurance.
Providing a tax credit for buying long term disability insurance.

Comments

[MIB]

Ed,

In all fairness, I have to ask before turning on the 3D blackboard to explain why those measures won't work if either of your parents collect Social Security? Do you have any relatives who receive SSI?

[DarkStar]

Yes, I have relatives who receive SSI.

[P6]

I'm over 50. 54, to be exact. Why is it okay to change MY contract? Especially since Social Security is not what broke the economy?

Why don't you support going after the ones who broke the economy?

[DarkStar]

P6, good point. What should be the cutoff? 50? 55? 60?

[P6]

I think it should be cutoff at the ones who broke the economy.

[MIB]

You can not have this,

"... people who are receiving Social Security benefits should continue to receive said benefits...",

and this,

"Immediately refunding 50% of the money... to let me invest as I wish",

without reducing the payments to current beneficiaries. This is because Social Security is not a retirement account, but social insurance against advanced age, condition of infirmity/disability, or loss of a spouse or parent worker covered by the program. Like all insurance plans, much of the revenue from current payees goes to directly to current beneficiaries. And while the Federal gov't has routinely borrowed from Social Security to cover deficits from general operations, surpluses are invested into U.S. Gov't bonds. IIRC, almost 1 of every 2 seniors stay out of poverty thanks to Social Security. Your aforementioned relatives probably benefit similarly.

I'm guessing you were mentally out of the country when the previous administration commissioned a panel to privatize Social Security only to discover the transition costs were so prohibitive and the plan's supposed benefits so unrealistic, the then-President and Republican supporters quietly killed the initiative. Perhaps the time they spent sucking the life out of the economy didn't leave anything to spare for arguing bad fiscal policy.

Put that 'privatize Social Security' stick down and leave the dead horse carcass be.