Skip to main content

View Diary: Retire at 55: Guess Who Else Is Suggesting an INCREASE in Social Security Benefits? (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You are making the argument for (0+ / 0-)

    lowering the age of Medicare and/or going to single payer and that is fine.  I understand that and mostly agree with that.  However, the argument that was presented in this thread is that if you take the most experienced people in our workforce, remove them from the labor pool, provide them with SS and Medicare at taxpayer expense, that you will suddenly make the country much better off.

    It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me and there doesn't seem to be much explanation behind why people think that removing the most productive people from the labor pool and increasing taxes on those that remain in the labor pool will make the country better off.  They also don't address how they think that we can work only a little more than 30 years and receive SS and Medicare for only a slightly lower amount of time.  What are the tax rates necessary to support such a system?

    Another way to look at it is:  let's say you are 30.  And your parents are 56.  Some people are saying that that 30 year old can create enough value through their work to be able to support themselves, take care of their kids and pay for all the SS and Medicare benefits for their parents.  (Yes, in reality it doesn't quite work like that but in broad general terms that is what those supporting this idea are saying)  I don't see that system as being sustainable and the people advocating for it are taking it as a given.

    We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

    by theotherside on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 10:42:53 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ok, we're talking about two different things (0+ / 0-)

      then.

      Back along the jobs line,  Medicare for all would uncouple health care from employment and potentially free up some percentage of the current workforce to be entreprenureal (sp? sorry) or work part-time, or ? without sacrificing their (and their families) health coverage.  Perhaps the thinking is similar for changing SS - a better SS payout (attained by lifting the cap on income subject to SS tax, perhaps?) would give some people the option to retire or go to part-time work sooner, if they wanted.  

      Under the current system way too many of us are wage slaves to  health insurance coverage from our employers & the distant promise of having enough to survive on without starving when we can't work any longer.  

      We're all in this together, bottom line.

      Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comfortable.

      by FindingMyVoice on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 11:32:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site