Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (524519)	11/25/2012 6:27:20 PM
From: Bearcatbob	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793991

Lord LIndy - this one really frosts me. The whole concept of SS is that it is an insurance policy, As such - it should be paid for by premiums. One can wonder just what is being insured against. Is it simply living to reach retirement - or is it insuring against poverty in old age? We need to decide how much government we want - and the we damn well need to pay for it. Bob

To: LindyBill who wrote (524519)	11/25/2012 6:59:10 PM
From: skinowski	6 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793991

components of a sensible Social Security reform — means-testing for wealthier beneficiaries, changing the way benefits adjust for inflation, a slow increase in the retirement age The third "component" is actually taking place - and it should, in order to reflect the longer life expectancies. The second one is a threat to older people - a few years of moderate inflation may make benefits almost meaningless. The one that pisses me off is the one about means testing. 1) that wasn't the deal when they collected from people serious money, for decades, and the future benefits were clearly spelled out. Not nice to change rules late in the game. 2) means-testing will change SS into a form of welfare. As shtty as its design is, it was conceived not as welfare, and not as insurance, but as a pension plan administered by the government. *Pay as you go was a terrible idea. A large part of the funds should have been invested in the individual payers name, in an "index of indexes" - which would include equities, bonds, real estate, etc., with its composition not subject to change. That said, the government should have stayed out of the pension business altogether. Let people save and prepare for old age. Those who fail to do so would have to rely on welfare. That would be better than to have people rely on a pension, only to change it along the way into a form of welfare.