T Nation

Serious Entitlement Reform

It’s a beginning.

I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.

“First, give less to the wealthy rather than take more from them”

I agree with the first. There is no reason for someone with millions in retirement to receive an SS check. I don’t care if they (read I) paid/pay into it their whole life.

“Second, assess wealth based on lifetime earnings rather than on income or assets”

This I don’t agree with. You can easily earn $100K a year and have nothing when you go to retire. Whether it’s due to stupidity, divorce, lawsuits, etc… There would have to be additional assessments to make sure we don’t hang someone out to dry because their spouse gambled $75K away a year, for example.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
I wish they’d get rid of it within a couple years. Those government nitwits should have slain that monstrosity long ago.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
I wish they’d get rid of it within a couple years. Those government nitwits should have slain that monstrosity long ago.[/quote]

I’m with you, but we are talking about the government…

I don’t see why we can’t ween oil companies, coal producers , farmers and all other Corporations that get subsidies off. I could see the government over seeing an Insurance program for farmers but subsidies have outlived their intent.

I think Social programs need work too. But one has to understand at the present there are more people than there are jobs . I also think there is an incentive not to work when the prevailing wage is below welfare benefits .

It is a start of the conversation.

First one, once you reach 65 and you get medicare that is the only medical benefit most people over 65 have, so giving them less coverage is not good. Have their premiums go up or put in a deductible or copay.

Second one, I agree with. SS based on lifetime earnings, and not on your assets when you retire. We need our savings rate to go up, and not insentivize spending above our wages because we know SS will be there. SS is only suppose to cover 33% of your retirement income. If a spouse gambles away $75k a year I think it is time for a new spouse. The Government is not a choice for spouse. I have a friend that makes as much as my wife and I combined, and he has zero to show for it. Yeah he drives a nice car, but that is it. My wife and I save our money and we are almost millionaires. Should me and my wife be penalized because we were good stewards of our money. We also give away 10+% of our income every year to charity. My friend does not.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I also think there is an incentive not to work when the prevailing wage is below welfare benefits .[/quote]

I agree, Welfare benefits should be decreased.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t see why we can’t ween oil companies, coal producers , farmers and all other Corporations that get subsidies off. I could see the government over seeing an Insurance program for farmers but subsidies have outlived their intent.

I think Social programs need work too. But one has to understand at the present there are more people than there are jobs . I also think there is an incentive not to work when the prevailing wage is below welfare benefits .[/quote]

Got no problem with that. The only time I’d say they are useful is if an industry can’t compete internationally because of slave labor/unsafe practices. It’s hard to compete with kids & adults working $.10 an hour.

The article stated that the sequester was $1 trillion. It is only $44-85 billion.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The article stated that the sequester was $1 trillion. It is only $44-85 billion.[/quote]

It is about a trillion all told–i.e. over the next decade or so.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The article stated that the sequester was $1 trillion. It is only $44-85 billion.[/quote]

It is about a trillion all told–i.e. over the next decade or so.[/quote]

But they are not cuts, they are only a cut in the increases.

Friday we are going to wake up and everything will be just the same.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t see why we can’t ween oil companies, coal producers , farmers and all other Corporations that get subsidies off. I could see the government over seeing an Insurance program for farmers but subsidies have outlived their intent.

I think Social programs need work too. But one has to understand at the present there are more people than there are jobs . I also think there is an incentive not to work when the prevailing wage is below welfare benefits .[/quote]

Got no problem with that. The only time I’d say they are useful is if an industry can’t compete internationally because of slave labor/unsafe practices. It’s hard to compete with kids & adults working $.10 an hour. [/quote]

we agree

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t see why we can’t ween oil companies, coal producers , farmers and all other Corporations that get subsidies off.[/quote]

Name the subsidy that oil companies get. It’s a lie oft repeated.

I expect more from you.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
The article stated that the sequester was $1 trillion. It is only $44-85 billion.[/quote]

It is about a trillion all told–i.e. over the next decade or so.[/quote]

But they are not cuts, they are only a cut in the increases.[/quote]

Exactlly, they are cuts to planned spending.

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t see why we can’t ween oil companies, coal producers , farmers and all other Corporations that get subsidies off.[/quote]

Name the subsidy that oil companies get. It’s a lie oft repeated.

I expect more from you.
[/quote]

well don’t get your hopes up :slight_smile: If I were King Of America all corporations would be tax exempt but all profits would be paid out in dividends at a given time . That would exclude equipment and operating expenses for a given period . That way Ma And Pa could compete with Exxon

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Friday we are going to wake up and everything will be just the same.[/quote]

Agreed. Now that ‘fiscal cliff’ has been played out, I think ‘last minute deal’ is next.

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
I wish they’d get rid of it within a couple years. Those government nitwits should have slain that monstrosity long ago.[/quote]

Consider…
The median individual income is currently a little south of 40,0000 yr. Assuming they work for 50 years at 40/yr that’s lifetime earnings of 2 million. I believe it is estimated that one would need at least 500,000 [1 milliom seems a more common recommendation] for a secure retirement. The cost of living is ‘mild’ where I live by comparison and it would very difficult/impossible to save 25-50% of gross earnings and keep a roof over your head. If I earn 100,000 and live like I earn 50,000 it could be done, if you earn 40,000 there isn’t much room south of where your starting. It’s a tough problem and I see no leaders from either party that are up to the challange. The poor-house system that SS replaced was no better and cost just as much, if not more.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
I wish they’d get rid of it within a couple years. Those government nitwits should have slain that monstrosity long ago.[/quote]

Consider…
The median individual income is currently a little south of 40,0000 yr. Assuming they work for 50 years at 40/yr that’s lifetime earnings of 2 million. I believe it is estimated that one would need at least 500,000 [1 milliom seems a more common recommendation] for a secure retirement. The cost of living is ‘mild’ where I live by comparison and it would very difficult/impossible to save 25-50% of gross earnings and keep a roof over your head. If I earn 100,000 and live like I earn 50,000 it could be done, if you earn 40,000 there isn’t much room south of where your starting. It’s a tough problem and I see no leaders from either party that are up to the challange. The poor-house system that SS replaced was no better and cost just as much, if not more. [/quote]

You dont save at 0% interest. That is where growth comes into play. Buy some Real Estate paying 10-20% (I’m getting more around 50%), or some stocks (6-10%), or Bonds (1-4%). You get some growth so you only have to save 10-20% of your income. Time Value of Money is incredible.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see any reason why we can’t ween many Americans off certain benefits. I think SS should be pracically elinated over the next 50-100 years.[/quote]
I wish they’d get rid of it within a couple years. Those government nitwits should have slain that monstrosity long ago.[/quote]

Consider…
The median individual income is currently a little south of 40,0000 yr. Assuming they work for 50 years at 40/yr that’s lifetime earnings of 2 million. I believe it is estimated that one would need at least 500,000 [1 milliom seems a more common recommendation] for a secure retirement. The cost of living is ‘mild’ where I live by comparison and it would very difficult/impossible to save 25-50% of gross earnings and keep a roof over your head. If I earn 100,000 and live like I earn 50,000 it could be done, if you earn 40,000 there isn’t much room south of where your starting. It’s a tough problem and I see no leaders from either party that are up to the challange. The poor-house system that SS replaced was no better and cost just as much, if not more. [/quote]

You dont save at 0% interest. That is where growth comes into play. Buy some Real Estate paying 10-20% (I’m getting more around 50%), or some stocks (6-10%), or Bonds (1-4%). You get some growth so you only have to save 10-20% of your income. Time Value of Money is incredible.[/quote]

We certainly should consider the potentail of investing, I know I do. Someone earning 40,000/yr is going to have their hands full w/their primary residence…if they can afford that. If one follows the index fund/high cap/foreign/bond approach, I don’t think expecting 6-10% is reasonable. If you are able to manage/trade your own stocks/bonds, I doubt you’re earning 40,000/yr. If you have money in savings, CD’s, etc (which would be the first line of defense along with insurance) you are essentially earning 0-1%. You are talking about a person with means, and everybody should always be working to improve their situation. You seem to have a sold handle on yours, I’m in pretty good shape myself, however it seems we are in the minority.