How would you fix Social Security?

SPC Erich Guenther - Thats quite a imagination !!!!

SPC Erich Guenther - A Guaranteed Minimum Income for all persons, including children, sounds like communism and evil socialism. But it's been experimented with in many countries, including the US and Canada, and the results are encouraging.

At first mention, I would say that if people were guaranteed a living wage without working for it, then naturally everybody would quit work and be bums! But in reality, it doesn't turn out that way. When people have a guaranteed living wage (for example, $2000 a month for adults, $300 monthly to each child), the result is that nearly nobody quits working. Very few become bums. Instead, when the stress of being a "wage slave" goes away, people have the freedom to find a good match in the workplace, get the training they need for their dream job, produce well, are happy and contribute to the community. The result is that the system pays for itself.

Anyway, that's what I've read. I suspect that no such thing could possibly happen in the US, though.

SPC Erich Guenther the national paycheck sounds suspiciously like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Pure communism. Capitalism made the US the most powerful country in the world and the strongest economy. A bunch of socialist whiners are crying capitalism isn't fair. Well, no kidding! That's why it works so well. Achievement, innovation, and excellence are rewarded.

As far as the objection to increased retirement age from SP5 Christine Conley, please note I was proposing something that is already in the works. Younger citizens already have an increased age at which they can get full SS. I had to wait until I was 66. The younger citizens would have more time to save their own money for retirement if they want to retire before 70. I don't propose to cut out the option to retire between age 62 and 69 and receive a lower benefit.

Yes, a desk job makes working longer easier. If I wasn't a full time caregiver for my wife, I could probably do my previous job as a GS14 as well today (at 69+) as I did when I was 60. However, I had a GS13 who worked for me and was 72. His life style, including alcoholism, smoking, and other bad habits had so dissipated his mental and physical capabilities that he was useless. Slept at his desk. Took a smoke break every hour. Couldn't master basic computer skills, like saving files and finding them later. didn't get any useful work done in a day, much less keep up with the demands of the job. I forced his retirement for his own good and the good of the Service. A desk job isn't always the solution. Sometimes life choices make the long-term difference.

SPC Erich Guenther - Hmm . . . Elon Musk's proposal sounds interesting. It also sounds like it has a basis in "The Nordic Model" which the neutral Scandinavian nations enjoy. "The Nordic model is a term coined to capture the unique combination of free market capitalism and social benefits that have given rise to a society that enjoys a host of top-quality services, including free education and free healthcare, as well as generous, guaranteed pension payments for retirees." (from an interesting article: "The Nordic Model: Pros and Cons" http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100714/nordic-model-pros-and-cons.asp )

RR is fairly nice and basically there are two tiers. Tier I is very, very similar to Social Security and pays supplimental income and disability income. Tier II pays from the supplimental income level to retirement pay or pension pay level. Railroad employees are taxed for both and are taxed at a higher rate than current Social Security but in return they get a full pension not just supplimental income. The full pension part comes out of Tier II not Tier I. I understand what you say about keeping the money and certainly I could do better in a 401k myself if that extra tax money went there instead of into SS Trust. However, most people are ignorant of how NYSE works and if you allowed the option for people to keep the money a large chunk of the population would spend vs save and would retire without any income. Which would be a bigger disaster then where we are now.

SPC Erich Guenther - It could be a biggest disaster since more will spend rather than save but it was never the governments job to provide for retirement income... I get the notion of provide services or provide income but they do both now and more coming soon. It's a mess without a clear COA.

my ex father in law worked for the railroad his whole life heres the big differance when you become disabled you get disability benefits but as soon as you die all that money left goes back to the rail road fund the surviving spouse cannot collect on his earned retirement untill the spouse hits retirement age even if she has dependents so it kinda leaves people high and dry also depending on how sick some one is most of his account could be used up before actually reaching retirement leaving them with very little its not awfull bad but its surplus is from dead workers whos families were left to struggle fix ss quit dipping into it to pay for other government projects thats been a big issue the gov using it as there little piggy bank

SPC Phil Norton - wow, sorry to read about your family member. I didn't expect to read about those kinds of issues with a system that's been around as long as I expect it has.

True, but keep in mind that this is not how Social Security was set up, nor how it is billed **NOW**. We were told/forced to contribute. When the government realized it was a handy pool from which to dip in to, all and sundry governments have exhorted Joe Citizen to make maximum contributions. Makes sense right? If you and I did something smart and took even a cheesy 401K, that would be money that the government could not steal. So while on the one hand, you are correct that social security as a retirement plan is flawed, the problem is that we the citizens, have been told just the opposite. This is why too many people have nothing **BUT** social security to fall back on.

So raising the retirement age from 62 - 72 may be cool somewhere, but there are people who have reached 62 who have been lead to believe that this is their retirement plan. And to their credit, government has not gone out of its way to promote anything BUT social security saving. So why would they have known? Don't you remember all those slips your parents got in their paycheck envelope telling them to buy a savings bond? "Government backed. Safe." How could you go wrong, right? So why would a person likewise, feel that SS would not be a good idea?

Several comments have hinted at this. That plan may work for you and I as well as most college educated or skilled trade workers. However from my experience in the civilian sector most lower wage earners would not take the money saved by opting out of SS and invest it for retirement. They would use the money for day to day living. Forcing them to pay into SS through payroll deductions is all that keeps them from having nothing when they reach retirement age.