Social Security question, was asked to start a new thread on it.

[Fugus]

I am starting this to continue a discussion earlier and I much prefer it being public for all to read and contribute and because I find the DM system on here cumbersome at times, especially when I am on my phone doing stuff so here it is. To the moderation, I am not calling anyone out or anything, he actually requested this as a possible way to continue.

So, as you wish @Machismo

While your solution to Social Security was to cut it and let those who are barely making ends meet off it already to full on go under and telling them they need to ween themselves off with the only 2 things they can ween themselves onto is either death or trying to get a job at 60-80 years old and in deteriorating health. Not a solution but you have refused to address that failing in your logic but the question I want to ask specifically is this:

Under your solution, you say that people should invest in their retirements in systems other than Social Security and that that system should be entirely OPTIONAL. Under that system, a statistically significant people will not take that "Option" because they are either too poor to or too dumb or short sighted to think that far. That will amount to at LEAST 15% of the elderly population even under the rosiest of predictions, probably closer to 35%+.

For those of that group who have gotten too old to work and have no retirement because they weren't forced to pay into it because you made it optional when it wasn't. What is your solution to handle them?

And saying that you don't care isn't an answer because if you are a government or society or even a person who doesn't want to deal with the increased crime from these people trying to survive when they are too old to work and too broke not to and just don't want a gun at your head so some elderly man can eat or pay for his medicines and roof over his head, just ignoring them is NOT an option.

So, you can't ignore them and there is no way to imprison THAT much of our population let alone the political and social fallout of explaining WHY you are locking them away was because they were forced to commit crimes to survive as an elderly person in our system.

So, what is your solution to handle that section of the population? And, as I said, ignoring them IS NOT AN OPTION.

Edit: Also remember that those you just cut social security on who was on the cusp of surviving will also be a part of that group I am asking about, making it even larger.

[Machismo]

Thanks for opening up a new thread.

For some back story:

SS is slowly but surely coming to a very dangerous cliff. In less than 14 years, SS is going to become insolvent, unless something is done. There really isn't much debate, the numbers are quite clear. When 2034 rolls around, the SS Trust Fund will be completely depleted, and benefits will be cut by more than 25%, and will continue to fall every year after that.

Now, we have known this was coming for a couple decades, but our government has done nothing about it. It's the ultimate third rail of politics, because it directly impacts tens of millions of old people, and those fuckers vote. So, nobody has touched it. Sure, there were a few ideas batted around, but nothing has been done. As we approach that cliff, the desperation is going to ramp up considerably. Imagine suddenly getting a 25% pay cut, and being told you were going to get less and less every year after that. That would terrify you.

So, Fugus and I have discussed how to solve the issue, and I pointed out that it boils down to three basic concepts (other than liquidating or dissolving it entirely). They are:
1) Increase taxes. This is either done by increasing the payroll tax of all Americans, or by increasing the earnings cap of people making more than ~$130k per year.
2) Increasing the retirement age, so that less people are collecting. Bottom line, people are living longer, so they are collecting longer, and putting more stress on the system.
3) Lowering benefits starting now, to ease the transition to insolvency, slowing it down, and allowing for people to prepare to cover ore of their own retirements when that time comes.

Now, I would prefer to not raise taxes, because we've done it more than 20 times already, and we're still in this spot. I see merit in both the second and third ideas, as it allows for time to prepare, and promotes more individual responsibility.

Now, to answer the questions, I'm not going to ignore those people. I'm simply opting to inform them of what is happening, as it has been happening for a while, and explain what the consequences of inaction will be. Yes, that means recommending they prepare for their own retirements, the earlier the better. If people choose to not take that option, then good for them. They can live with their decisions.

I think of it a lot like states like Florida and Texas, who didn't take the pandemic seriously, and are getting crushed as a result. Hell, I'm talking about everyone who didn't take it seriously, despite the ample warnings. Now, take those warnings, and push them out a total of 30-40 years, that's how much time people had to prepare for this particular "pandemic." At some point, their actions stop being my responsibility. If a person cannot be bothered, then why should I bother?

This is no different than a lifelong smoker dying of lung cancer. Sure, it sucks, but is it really my burden, much less my fault? I say it is not.

If some anti-vaxxer in Florida gets sick, and his hospital bills stack up in his lap, that should not be my burden to bear.

Mind you, this isn't even just a single poor decision, but literally decades of poor decisions. I don't feel the need to take car of a dude who cheats on his wife, and loses his house in the divorce, either.

Or, one you may be more content with: Imagine banking institutions that ignored ample warnings over debt, and still chose to trade on leverage, all while making riskier and riskier bets. I have no sympathy for those banks, and had no desire to bail them out.

[Fugus]

@Machismo

Your entire response still does not answer the question I posed. So I reiterate.

While your solution to Social Security was to cut it and let those who are barely making ends meet off it already to full on go under and telling them they need to ween themselves off with the only 2 things they can ween themselves onto is either death or trying to get a job at 60-80 years old and in deteriorating health. Not a solution but you have refused to address that failing in your logic but the question I want to ask specifically is this:

Under your solution, you say that people should invest in their retirements in systems other than Social Security and that that system should be entirely OPTIONAL. Under that system, a statistically significant people will not take that "Option" because they are either too poor to or too dumb or short sighted to think that far. That will amount to at LEAST 15% of the elderly population even under the rosiest of predictions, probably closer to 35%+.

For those of that group who have gotten too old to work and have no retirement because they weren't forced to pay into it because you made it optional when it wasn't. What is your solution to handle them?

And saying that you don't care isn't an answer because if you are a government or society or even a person who doesn't want to deal with the increased crime from these people trying to survive when they are too old to work and too broke not to and just don't want a gun at your head so some elderly man can eat or pay for his medicines and roof over his head, just ignoring them is NOT an option.

So, you can't ignore them and there is no way to imprison THAT much of our population let alone the political and social fallout of explaining WHY you are locking them away was because they were forced to commit crimes to survive as an elderly person in our system.

So, what is your solution to handle that section of the population? And, as I said, ignoring them IS NOT AN OPTION.

Edit: Also remember that those you just cut social security on who was on the cusp of surviving will also be a part of that group I am asking about, making it even larger.

I am not asking you about funding or any of that, just to get a straight answer, I constrained it to this singular aspect of it. And saying you don't care or feel the need to care doesn't answer isn't a real answer as you will have to deal with them on a large scale. The government will have to deal with them, society will have to, and this isn't some small number of people. So ignoring them isn't an answer.

HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH THEM?

[Machismo]

@Machismo

Your entire response still does not answer the question I posed. So I reiterate.



I am not asking you about funding or any of that, just to get a straight answer, I constrained it to this singular aspect of it. And saying you don't care or feel the need to care doesn't answer isn't a real answer as you will have to deal with them on a large scale. The government will have to deal with them, society will have to, and this isn't some small number of people. So ignoring them isn't an answer.

HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH THEM?

I did answer, I leave them to their own devices. I let them fail, so to speak. I get that you may think this is heartless, but it's really not. They have years and years to plan for this shit, so let them take care of themselves, or not... their choice. They either work longer, learn to live with less, or hope that some charitable chap like you is willing to take care of them. Or, they do like I recommend, and plan, now.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Great. Two threads with Machismo not answering questions about his...ahem...interesting political views. This will end well.

[Edge-]

I get that you may think this is heartless, but it's really not.

I mean, I think most folks would agree that letting old folks suffer is pretty heartless and not the hallmark of a developed, enlightened, or moral society.

Like, I think you'll find little support for your position that it's "not".

[Fugus]

I did answer, I leave them to their own devices. I let them fail, so to speak. I get that you may think this is heartless, but it's really not. They have years and years to plan for this shit, so let them take care of themselves, or not... their choice. They either work longer, learn to live with less, or hope that some charitable chap like you is willing to take care of them. Or, they do like I recommend, and plan, now.

Leave them to their own devices.... So your answer is to basically let a group of elderly people to die and cause massive crime in the efforts to survive.

This is an interesting way of saying, "You have no answer" and "Fuck em". It also shows you have no idea how to handle the issue that it would create on a national scale dealing with that many people starving and unable to work.

[Machismo]

I mean, I think most folks would agree that letting old folks suffer is pretty heartless and not the hallmark of a developed, enlightened, or moral society.

Like, I think you'll find little support for your position that it's "not".

Except, even the old folks have plenty of time to prepare. This has been the argument against reform for 20 years. It was a shitty argument now, and it's still a shitty argument. "Think of the old people." umm, it's the old people who weren't thinking, were selfish, and expect us to all take care of them ad infinitum.

I don't expect to find much support from liberals and progressives.

So, lower benefits by 1% a year, and that would ease the insolvency, and even push it back. Or, increase the retirement age by a year, every two year... until it's 70 as the standard. None of that is extreme, but it does promote personal responsibility, and allows for planning.

- - - Updated - - -

Leave them to their own devices.... So your answer is to basically let a group of elderly people to die and cause massive crime in the efforts to survive.

This is an interesting way of saying, "You have no answer" and "Fuck em". It also shows you have no idea how to handle the issue that it would create on a national scale dealing with that many people starving and unable to work.

Nope, they still get their SS, just a small amount less every year.... say 1%.

Either that, or creep up the retirement age by one year, every two for the next ten years.

I do have an answer, you just don't like it.

At some point, maybe people will stop ignoring the problem, and plan accordingly. Then again, considering how the last few decades have gone, maybe they won't.

[Fugus]

Again @Machismo

How do you solve the issues that your solution will cause to the nation as a whole?

We can't imprison that many people.
We can't let the crime it would cause run rampant.

How do you actually answer that problem your answer causes?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, they still get their SS, just a small amount less every year.... say 1%.

either that, or creep up the retirement age by one year, every two for the next ten years.

I do have an answer, you just don't like it.

And when you have people who can't or can just barely make ends meet and you cut that further, you put them in the situation I described. So TRY AGAIN with a real answer this time that actually doesn't ignore the consequences of your policy.

[jonnysensible]

increase taxes on the wealthy, there i solved the thread what do i win?

[Machismo]

Again @Machismo

How do you solve the issues that your solution will cause to the nation as a whole?

We can't imprison that many people.
We can't let the crime it would cause run rampant.

How do you actually answer that problem your answer causes?

No need to imprison them. I'm sure there's plenty of generous progressives who would be charitable enough to help them out /s.

Crime will be fine, because people will simply work longer, whilst collecting retirement.

- - - Updated - - -

Again @Machismo

How do you solve the issues that your solution will cause to the nation as a whole?

We can't imprison that many people.
We can't let the crime it would cause run rampant.

How do you actually answer that problem your answer causes?

- - - Updated - - -



And when you have people who can't or can just barely make ends meet and you cut that further, you put them in the situation I described. So TRY AGAIN with a real answer this time that actually doesn't ignore the consequences of your policy.

Once again, I don't really care if you like my answer. Anything short of getting rid of the earnings cap is an answer you simply cannot tolerate. That's not a "me" issue.

[Azadina]

I did answer, I leave them to their own devices. I let them fail, so to speak. I get that you may think this is heartless, but it's really not. They have years and years to plan for this shit, so let them take care of themselves, or not... their choice. They either work longer, learn to live with less, or hope that some charitable chap like you is willing to take care of them. Or, they do like I recommend, and plan, now.

And what happens when 100 of them in their starvation decide to pick up "freedom sticks", and come for your tasty food? No, they don't take no for an answer. Are you calling the police? They say on the phone that you had opted out of paying for their services, right after you privatised them, leaving a mercenary police force as the only police in town. Guess no help there, so what do you do? 100 armed and hungry people headed at you....that particular hypothetical week...

[Machismo]

And what happens when 100 of them in their starvation decide to pick up "freedom sticks", and come for your tasty food? No, they don't take no for an answer. Are you calling the police? They say on the phone that you had opted out of paying for their services, right after you privatised them, leaving a mercenary police force as the only police in town. Guess no help there, so what do you do? 100 armed and hungry people headed at you....that particular hypothetical week...

If they want to commit crimes, deal with them like you deal with any other criminal. If they come at me directly, and seek to do harm, then that's not going to end well.

You do realize we already know what happens, right? They just keep working. We saw it in the Great Recession.

[Fugus]

Once again, I don't really care if you like my answer. Anything short of getting rid of the earnings cap is an answer you simply cannot tolerate. That's not a "me" issue.

Your answer isn't an answer as it ignores the entire situation. The issue is your short-sighted policies and even when the faults of them are pointed out, you are putting on the blinders to avoid admitting them.

So again, WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO WITH THEM? And ignoring them isn't an option.

Are you going to outright kill them?
Are you going to let them starve to death and go homeless due to lack of income?
Are you going to create some national scale rest home for them to live in and run it like a prison?

What do you plan to do to solve the problem your policy will cause, because ignoring it isn't an answer.

TRY AGAIN.

- - - Updated - - -

If they want to commit crimes, deal with them like you deal with any other criminal. If they come at me directly, and seek to do harm, then that's not going to end well.

You do realize we already know what happens, right? They just keep working. We saw it in the Great Recession.

So you plan on putting ~20% of our elderly in prison because they tried to survive?

[Edge-]

Except, even the old folks have plenty of time to prepare.

Irrelevant, abandoning vulnerable populations is not something a society should do. It's nor moral nor is it the hallmark of a functional society. We have thousands of years worth of society who have done this long before, yet somehow we're no longer able.

"Think of the old people." umm, it's the old people who weren't thinking, were selfish, and expect us to all take care of them ad infinitum.

Which ignores multitudes of practical realities. My grandmother being a good example, she was a housewife that never worked because women simply didn't work at the time. The husband worked, the wife stayed at home. She has savings, but it's hardly enough on their own to continue to cover her long life - a life which is far longer than expected thanks to advances in medical science.

It's not her fault. That's simply how things were.

[QUOTE=Machismo;53369004]So, lower benefits by 1% a year, and that would ease the insolvency, and even push it back.[/quote[

While also putting those seniors, who are already often struggling already, in greater jeopardy.

Or, increase the retirement age by a year, every two year... until it's 70 as the standard.

There's room to argue for raising the retirement/SS eligibility age as part of a broader comprehensive plan. But that doesn't do much for folks who are already 65 and had planned around the existing retirement system.

None of that is extreme, but it does promote personal responsibility, and allows for planning.

Personal responsibility only goes so far and ignores the practical reality that reality is...unpredictable and unexpected developments happen.

The whole point of being a part of a society is the shared responsibility of all within the society.

[Machismo]

Your answer isn't an answer as it ignores the entire situation. The issue is your short-sighted policies and even when the faults of them are pointed out, you are putting on the blinders to avoid admitting them.

So again, WHAT DO YOU PLAN TO DO WITH THEM? And ignoring them isn't an option.

Are you going to outright kill them?
Are you going to let them starve to death and go homeless due to lack of income?
Are you going to create some national scale rest home for them to live in and run it like a prison?

What do you plan to do to solve the problem your policy will cause, because ignoring it isn't an answer.

TRY AGAIN.

No, it is an answer. Repeating the same question isn't going to give you a different answer.

I'm treating them as I treat every other person, let them do as they please, so long as they are not harming others. They have years and years to plan for this. As fo now, it's 13-ish years. If you slowly reduce benefits, or raise the age, that date gets pushed out to the right.

I mean, if you want to open up housing facilities for them, and take their SS payments as rent/food/utilities, then be my guest.

[Shadowferal]

Great. Two threads with Machismo not answering questions about his...ahem...interesting political views. This will end well.

A 4th thread...as if the first two weren't enough bullshit.

I mean, I think most folks would agree that letting old folks suffer is pretty heartless and not the hallmark of a developed, enlightened, or moral society.

Societies and government is judged by how they treat the most vulnerable. Probably why no government has ever accepted libertarian ideals since they shit on the disabled and elderly that need such benefits.

[Machismo]

Irrelevant, abandoning vulnerable populations is not something a society should do. It's nor moral nor is it the hallmark of a functional society. We have thousands of years worth of society who have done this long before, yet somehow we're no longer able.



Which ignores multitudes of practical realities. My grandmother being a good example, she was a housewife that never worked because women simply didn't work at the time. The husband worked, the wife stayed at home. She has savings, but it's hardly enough on their own to continue to cover her long life - a life which is far longer than expected thanks to advances in medical science.

It's not her fault. That's simply how things were.

So, lower benefits by 1% a year, and that would ease the insolvency, and even push it back.[/quote[

While also putting those seniors, who are already often struggling already, in greater jeopardy.



There's room to argue for raising the retirement/SS eligibility age as part of a broader comprehensive plan. But that doesn't do much for folks who are already 65 and had planned around the existing retirement system.



Personal responsibility only goes so far and ignores the practical reality that reality is...unpredictable and unexpected developments happen.

The whole point of being a part of a society is the shared responsibility of all within the society.

Then you don't abandon them, and start a charity. Do it.

As for your granny, it is her fault. I get that it's not what you want to hear, but it's her fucking fault she's where she's at. Being a "poor ignorant woman" isn't a defense.

If they had planned around the existing retirement system, then they'd know this cliff was coming. If they had planned, then there's no issue.

[Fugus]

No, it is an answer. Repeating the same question isn't going to give you a different answer.

I'm treating them as I treat every other person, let them do as they please, so long as they are not harming others. They have years and years to plan for this. As fo now, it's 13-ish years. If you slowly reduce benefits, or raise the age, that date gets pushed out to the right.

I mean, if you want to open up housing facilities for them, and take their SS payments as rent/food/utilities, then be my guest.

Your answer is to let over 20% of our elderly population to die and take those who attempt to survive and throw them in prison......

Great answer there..... Sounds like the great start of a dystopian flick.

[Azadina]

If they want to commit crimes, deal with them like you deal with any other criminal. If they come at me directly, and seek to do harm, then that's not going to end well.

You do realize we already know what happens, right? They just keep working. We saw it in the Great Recession.

Who's going to want to employ them all? They're doing fraction of the work a younger person does, while having half a century of salary growth. Lose-lose case for employers in many cases, with some exceptions of course.