Medicare: Go Ahead and Smoke...

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
it would be possible with smaller population, and more specifically low or zero population growth, which exists in some european countries. but since each generation is greater than the last, the retiree population is simply growing too fast.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards. Low or zero population growth makes it much harder to keep SS going.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to do this if you get rid of ss and medicare in the first place...

[/ QUOTE ]

are you arguing that the government should pocket the contributions it collected and benefits it promised, leaving the largest retiree population in history to care for themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, people can be provided "grandfathered" benefits according to what they have already paid into the system. In this way SS and Medicare are phased out incrementally.

Social Security is indeed a Ponzi scheme which, if offered by a private company, would rightly land it's executives in jail for fruad.

[cdxx]

[ QUOTE ]
No, people can be provided "grandfathered" benefits according to what they have already paid into the system. In this way SS and Medicare are phased out incrementally.

[/ QUOTE ]

but this would still screw everyone who is due benefits. do you see why?

btw, i am not arguing that it's a shiitty pyramid scheme. i am saying abolishing it is leaves a lot of people in poverty and without health insurance.

[ QUOTE ]
Please elaborate how ending a ponzi scheme would make it "bigger" than it already is.

[/ QUOTE ]

read the above post. i know this from my family's background (not specifically social security/medicare). they were promised pensions and health care when they retire. the system was abolished, and they received their contributions back at a pro-rated rate. the contributions were worthless.

[ QUOTE ]

This is backwards. Low or zero population growth makes it much harder to keep SS going.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is harder to keep SS going in its current incarnation, because current contributions pay for people who already retired. i am not arguing that. OTOH, there's no reason why a different system cannot support a non-growing population of seniors.

[ChipWrecked]

Somebody has to take the hit to be able to abolish SS. I've been paying in since 1976. They can keep every dime, just let me out now.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, people can be provided "grandfathered" benefits according to what they have already paid into the system. In this way SS and Medicare are phased out incrementally.

[/ QUOTE ]

but this would still screw everyone who is due benefits. do you see why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. The benefits could be pro-rated according to how long they have been paying into the system, rather than simply by getting back their contributions. Thus, those who are nearing retirement would still receive full benefits.

Of course, this would cost additional money from the budget, but that could be easily paid for by elimating all foreign aid and other government programs.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody has to take the hit to be able to abolish SS. I've been paying in since 1976. They can keep every dime, just let me out now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You think your system is bad, I'm being taxed to death in order to pay for middle class families to have kids (tax credits), single people are being over taxed to give rebates to families. Makes your lot seem like heaven to me.

Mack

[Walter Pullis]

Look, the problem with SS is actually easy to solve. Make all payments 100% taxable income. A rich guy would pay 35%+ back to the government while the poor would be below the level of taxation and not have to kick anything back. The middle would pay a small tax.
No, you can't say if you don't "need" SS you don't get it. You would need everyone's support for the program.