It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Make 70 the new 65 new age to retire

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
If they collapse the USD does it matter? Even on social security you'll be lucky to survive. $1 in 1950 is worth 900% less in 2011.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Of course no discussion of misappropriation of funds collected would be complete without this little mention:


Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Just more neglected duties of Congress, but that is another discussion in of itself.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


Well written and covering the problem nicely.

My take:

First of all, what caused the death of manufacturing in North America? Corporations going out of country for a cheaper workforce. What prompted companies to leave en masse? In my opinion, the 'Trickle-down Economics' which put loads of cash into the hands of large corporations.

Then, there was that banking mismanagement which ramped up personal debt to record levels and led to the housing bubble. After all, those people working in Walmarts and Target stores needed a place to live and the banks, which merged into huge corporations too, were all to happy to sell the American Dream and fob the cost off to countries overseas *cough*China*cough*.

First the manufacturing left for parts unknown and then the record debt followed closely on their heels.

Now you have a country that either employs its citizens in the service sector for peanuts OR hires foreign workers for short stints and sends them back home. Declining taxes from a shrinking middle class only leaves taxing the rich, which is the next big battle and not one that's easily going to happen. For one thing, the rich can just pull up stakes and leave for friendly countries, living off their Swiss bank accounts. That and the GOP will never allow it as long as they breathe... it's a conundrum.

In Canada, the move is to increase the employee deductions and prompt companies to equal that for each worker on a weekly basis. Other plans are personal pension accounts which are or are not taxable... it all depends on the party that wins the next election. We already have the lowest corporate taxes in the G8 and Harper wants them lower.

America needs to do something not just for pensioners, they need to boost the incomes of their working populations. You do NOT want to eventually wind up working for an average of a dollar a day, like they do in Egypt and Haiti. Tough decisions have to be made and one of them is somehow coaxing American companies to hire Americans so that they can not only afford their cherished American Dream but can also look after the growing numbers of sick and elderly. The alternative isn't pretty.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I feel like part of the problem is a misunderstanding of the economic world when this program begun. Having looked into this somewhat (but not nearly enough for my taste), I feel I have a cursory understanding.

Today we enjoy a wide variety of banking and investment options that simply were not available when SS began, so it's hard to imagine why this was thought a good idea to begin with. The people that received the benefits in the beginning had even worse options when they were younger and in the workforce, generally excluding many females for obvious reasons.

Like Affirmative Action, however, the programs had their purpose, performed them, and generally worked as intended. There comes a point in time, however, that we must accept that the modern man is fully capable and has the infrastructure with which to take care of these things on the personal level. Therefore I've developed a plan I believe will work and be fair to those who have paid and (according to the promise) are owed.

The following is based on the date of ratification of the legislation:
1) All people above the age of 45 will continue with the program as it stands and will collect when they reach the age of retirement.

2) All people between the age of 18 and 45 will have the option to opt out at any point provided they forfeit any money they have paid into the system hitherto

3) All people coming to age after the date of ratification will be opted out, never pay again, and never collect.

This will wean us off the system in a managed fashion that will provide those in category 2 with the option. I'd imagine that people on the younger side of things will find it more advantageous to choose to opt out where people at the higher end would choose to stay in, but it gives them the freedom to choose for themselves while fulfilling "the promise" to those of a certain age.

This, to my mind, will be fair and remove the issues we deal with today and in the future.

Peace
KJ



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
If they collapse the USD does it matter? Even on social security you'll be lucky to survive. $1 in 1950 is worth 900% less in 2011.


900% less? That seems confusing, but sorry to be nit picky. Wouldn't it be something like 90+% less?

Anyway, not really relevant.

Peace
KJ



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join