Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Your "solution" reminds me of the following old joke, which I'm sure you've heard:
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on a desert island. One day, a big crate filled with cans of chili washes ashore. The three of them are sitting on the beach trying to figure out how to open the cans.
The physicist proposes: we can determine the strength of the metal can and then calculate the force needed to break the can open without splattering all of the chili. I can then figure out exactly how high to throw the can so that it lands on a rock with the correct force.
The chemist counters: no, no, no, you'll never be able to throw it to just the right height. If we leave it in the hot sun for exactly the right amount of time and then quickly dip it in the cold ocean, the can will crack right open.
The economist says: That's all much too complicated. First, assume a can opener. . .
__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones
the following old joke, which I'm sure you've heard:
:) I haven't actually heard that one. Pretty good.
But if you don't like my idea of people-driven societal change, consider my earlier suggestion that extended families might actually wind up being strengthened as a matter of necessity, depending on what happens with SS.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
But if you don't like my idea of people-driven societal change, consider my earlier suggestion that extended families might actually wind up being strengthened as a matter of necessity, depending on what happens with SS.
I.e., If we ignore the problem, people will create a solution you like. The converse of that is the notion that SS has created a family problem by allowing people to ignore older family members.
I don't know that this is the basis of sound public policy.
__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones
One thing you are overlooking is the modern lifestyle. It's all about the newest, biggest, and most expensive. people are living most of their lives in debt. If we only consumed what we needed having mom and dad living with us wouldn't be that hard. make your shower a little faster, don't have that second helping at diner, no new bike this year and your even. What you're talking about is possible but not going to happen. We wouldn't need SS if people were better with their money(and yes i'm being very judgmental)
I.e., If we ignore the problem, people will create a solution you like.
That's not what I'm saying. It isn't like I have some nefarious and insidious plan to create stronger family bonds, and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
But it looks to me, basically, that Social Security as currently structured is just simply an untenable program. Eventually, it is going to give, and some other structure(s) is going to have to pick up the slack.
The converse of that is the notion that SS has created a family problem by allowing people to ignore older family members.
I've already said that I don't think SS created the problem, though I think it's fair enough to say that it contributed to it. (But again, I think you're attributing a motive to me that I don't have. I haven't been sitting around scheming and waiting for some opportunity to restore intergenerational family bonds. I'm just saying that stronger family ties offer a pretty good solution, at least partially, to the actual problem.)
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
A possiblity in vitus' plan is for someone in your family to move, either you or your folks. They come live with you, or you go live with them, but you support them.
If no moving is involved you send them money to either pay for their living expenses or healthcare etc, or you at least supplement their personal retirement income they amassed in their lives of working.
A very calluous (and economically driven view) would be "If you don't want to support your own parents, why would I? What benefit do I get from it? Tough s___ for them."
I personally think there's some middle ground on this, which I think is what you are driving at.
A possiblity in vitus' plan . . .
This is starting to sound like another thread we had on SS. What exactly was Vitus' plan?
__________________________________________________
What a drag it is getting old. -- Stones
" Isn't the real problem of SS that we are not demanding that Congress stop spending the surplus?"
I'd say no. The real problem is that we have growing expenditures and shrinking income.
Sure we have a surplus now and sure it'd help if the politicians would quite spending it, but whether in 2015 or 2042 the well will run dry.
Keeping the system the same as it is currently we only have a few options.
1) have another baby boom and increase population consistantly so the the ratio of recipent to payroll stays at a high ratio like 1:10
2) decrease benefits
3) Increase taxes
4) Some combination of the above.
~Matt