this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
164 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2299 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's not how Social Security works, and it never has worked that way.

SocSec is not a retirement account. It is a program that provides income to people who are retired, and it is funded by payroll withholding from people who have not retired. Prior to SocSec, there was a huge problem with poverty among the elderly, people who were no longer able to work, or not able to work the kind of demanding physical labor they used to. It was then, and is still now, wrong for society to abandon people to poverty when they're no longer able to work.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 days ago (4 children)

It should’ve been a retirement account. It would make it solvent forever. Instead it is a system that depends on ever growing population.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It should have been a proper entitlement instead of worker funded.

If we fund it through general taxes instead of payroll, you have the wonderful effect where everyone is covered and the program can never go insolvent. When population dynamics result in a generation of retirees bigger than the current workforce you just need to change tax rates or deficit spend.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (2 children)

They could also remove the cap on it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Yeah, but that would hurt the feelings of billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah, but that would actually fix the problem instead of creating a new one.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

401k and IRAs are retirement accounts.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

It already is solvent forever. Every year, it collects money from workers and pays it out to retirees. It can do this forever.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

It doesn't depend on an ever growing population. It depends on a certain percentage of people dying before they collect.