Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=flu][quote=creechrr]Are there any countries that are fiscal sound? I can’t think of one.[/quote]

China, japan, taiwan (if you consider it a separate country), s korea.[/quote]

I would Vote Canada, followed by Germany (if it could extract itself from the EU and move to Canada or maybe buy Iceland and move there).[/quote]

Canada is running massive deficits.

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=flu][quote=creechrr]Are there any countries that are fiscal sound? I can’t think of one.[/quote]

China, japan, taiwan (if you consider it a separate country), s korea.[/quote]

I would Vote Canada, followed by Germany (if it could extract itself from the EU and move to Canada or maybe buy Iceland and move there).[/quote]

Canada is running massive deficits.

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=flu][quote=creechrr]Are there any countries that are fiscal sound? I can’t think of one.[/quote]

China, japan, taiwan (if you consider it a separate country), s korea.[/quote]

I would Vote Canada, followed by Germany (if it could extract itself from the EU and move to Canada or maybe buy Iceland and move there).[/quote]

Canada is running massive deficits.

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=flu][quote=creechrr]Are there any countries that are fiscal sound? I can’t think of one.[/quote]

China, japan, taiwan (if you consider it a separate country), s korea.[/quote]

I would Vote Canada, followed by Germany (if it could extract itself from the EU and move to Canada or maybe buy Iceland and move there).[/quote]

Canada is running massive deficits.

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy][quote=flu][quote=creechrr]Are there any countries that are fiscal sound? I can’t think of one.[/quote]

China, japan, taiwan (if you consider it a separate country), s korea.[/quote]

I would Vote Canada, followed by Germany (if it could extract itself from the EU and move to Canada or maybe buy Iceland and move there).[/quote]

Canada is running massive deficits.

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

You know. As far as social security is concerned,
tt just seems like without immigration, we are in decline in terms of outgoing generation outnumber incoming generations.
I read somewhere that when the baby boomers retire, 1 person in the current workforce (generation X and beyond) will essentially be supporting 3 baby boomers. Coupled with the fact that baby boomers haven’t been good at savings and neither have the generation x’s. This is a big problem, because baby boomers will be demanding more social programs while generation x’s (not having savings) will already be tapped out…Also, generation X’s aren’t having as many offspring as previous generations.

The only way it seems we can reverse this trend…is to allow more *legal* immigration into the workforce to pay for all this.

Currently, H1-B folk already have to pay into this system, even if they never naturalize…
I wonder want would happen if
1) No limit on H1-B’s
2) Extend the naturalization process from 5 to 7 years

Obviously, the concern would be with a flood of immigration, this would put pressure on wages to go down…

But I just wonder what is worse.

Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

You know. As far as social security is concerned,
tt just seems like without immigration, we are in decline in terms of outgoing generation outnumber incoming generations.
I read somewhere that when the baby boomers retire, 1 person in the current workforce (generation X and beyond) will essentially be supporting 3 baby boomers. Coupled with the fact that baby boomers haven’t been good at savings and neither have the generation x’s. This is a big problem, because baby boomers will be demanding more social programs while generation x’s (not having savings) will already be tapped out…Also, generation X’s aren’t having as many offspring as previous generations.

The only way it seems we can reverse this trend…is to allow more *legal* immigration into the workforce to pay for all this.

Currently, H1-B folk already have to pay into this system, even if they never naturalize…
I wonder want would happen if
1) No limit on H1-B’s
2) Extend the naturalization process from 5 to 7 years

Obviously, the concern would be with a flood of immigration, this would put pressure on wages to go down…

But I just wonder what is worse.

Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

You know. As far as social security is concerned,
tt just seems like without immigration, we are in decline in terms of outgoing generation outnumber incoming generations.
I read somewhere that when the baby boomers retire, 1 person in the current workforce (generation X and beyond) will essentially be supporting 3 baby boomers. Coupled with the fact that baby boomers haven’t been good at savings and neither have the generation x’s. This is a big problem, because baby boomers will be demanding more social programs while generation x’s (not having savings) will already be tapped out…Also, generation X’s aren’t having as many offspring as previous generations.

The only way it seems we can reverse this trend…is to allow more *legal* immigration into the workforce to pay for all this.

Currently, H1-B folk already have to pay into this system, even if they never naturalize…
I wonder want would happen if
1) No limit on H1-B’s
2) Extend the naturalization process from 5 to 7 years

Obviously, the concern would be with a flood of immigration, this would put pressure on wages to go down…

But I just wonder what is worse.

Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

You know. As far as social security is concerned,
tt just seems like without immigration, we are in decline in terms of outgoing generation outnumber incoming generations.
I read somewhere that when the baby boomers retire, 1 person in the current workforce (generation X and beyond) will essentially be supporting 3 baby boomers. Coupled with the fact that baby boomers haven’t been good at savings and neither have the generation x’s. This is a big problem, because baby boomers will be demanding more social programs while generation x’s (not having savings) will already be tapped out…Also, generation X’s aren’t having as many offspring as previous generations.

The only way it seems we can reverse this trend…is to allow more *legal* immigration into the workforce to pay for all this.

Currently, H1-B folk already have to pay into this system, even if they never naturalize…
I wonder want would happen if
1) No limit on H1-B’s
2) Extend the naturalization process from 5 to 7 years

Obviously, the concern would be with a flood of immigration, this would put pressure on wages to go down…

But I just wonder what is worse.

Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=davelj]The sad part is that the Medicare and SS issues can be solved quite easily (well, in practice – not politically): raise the age at which folks start receiving benefits from 65 to 70. Voila! Problem solved. Literally, more than 40% of the projected liability would disappear. And the remaining liability can be funded under the status quo. But that AARP… they’re indefatigable.

Also, having folks actually work an extra five years would be good for the country’s overall productivity.[/quote]

Easy for you to say. Me too, pretty much. But for construction workers? Or other manufacturing jobs that require physical rather than purely mental work, not so much. For many, working to age 70 is just not a feasible option.

Additionally, life expenctancy for workers in many occupations, as well as lower income and minority populations barely exceeds 70. (As an example, life expectancy for African American men is 70.2 years as compared with more than 76 for all population groups.)

And normal retirement age is already over 65. I think for me (born in 1955) its something like 66 years 8 months. Early retirement benefits are still available at a lower rate at 62.[/quote]

You know. As far as social security is concerned,
tt just seems like without immigration, we are in decline in terms of outgoing generation outnumber incoming generations.
I read somewhere that when the baby boomers retire, 1 person in the current workforce (generation X and beyond) will essentially be supporting 3 baby boomers. Coupled with the fact that baby boomers haven’t been good at savings and neither have the generation x’s. This is a big problem, because baby boomers will be demanding more social programs while generation x’s (not having savings) will already be tapped out…Also, generation X’s aren’t having as many offspring as previous generations.

The only way it seems we can reverse this trend…is to allow more *legal* immigration into the workforce to pay for all this.

Currently, H1-B folk already have to pay into this system, even if they never naturalize…
I wonder want would happen if
1) No limit on H1-B’s
2) Extend the naturalization process from 5 to 7 years

Obviously, the concern would be with a flood of immigration, this would put pressure on wages to go down…

But I just wonder what is worse.

Having fewer people paid higher wage, and having those people pay say 40%+ taxes…or… (current predicament) or….

Having more people (which will lower wages), but taxing them lower…

I don’t see the point in keeping a higher salary if the government is going to be taxing it up the ying-yang…

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]hmm

I don’t know FLU, suppose you are right but I have been hearing that the only country who is going to be in worse shape than the EU (as far as aging population) is Japan followed closely by China.

But you are usually right so I will take your word for it.[/quote]

LOL….You are kidding right? What the hell do I know….

I don’t have a prediction for China. On one hand the country is considered “rich”. On the other hand, they are virtually dependent on american consumers. When we can’t afford to buy crap anymore, the musical chairs stop. Culturally, Chinese view money differently than I would say here. Typically, at least in the previous generations, you don’t buy things on “credit”. So it will take probably generation 2 or 3 to start adopting consumerism. .The other thing, the majority of folks are still dirt poor there. How long would it take for consumerism from china to even come close to U.S…Probably never….So…where are folks going to find all the spenders….Maybe we’ll have discovered an alien race in another planet by then 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]hmm

I don’t know FLU, suppose you are right but I have been hearing that the only country who is going to be in worse shape than the EU (as far as aging population) is Japan followed closely by China.

But you are usually right so I will take your word for it.[/quote]

LOL….You are kidding right? What the hell do I know….

I don’t have a prediction for China. On one hand the country is considered “rich”. On the other hand, they are virtually dependent on american consumers. When we can’t afford to buy crap anymore, the musical chairs stop. Culturally, Chinese view money differently than I would say here. Typically, at least in the previous generations, you don’t buy things on “credit”. So it will take probably generation 2 or 3 to start adopting consumerism. .The other thing, the majority of folks are still dirt poor there. How long would it take for consumerism from china to even come close to U.S…Probably never….So…where are folks going to find all the spenders….Maybe we’ll have discovered an alien race in another planet by then 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]hmm

I don’t know FLU, suppose you are right but I have been hearing that the only country who is going to be in worse shape than the EU (as far as aging population) is Japan followed closely by China.

But you are usually right so I will take your word for it.[/quote]

LOL….You are kidding right? What the hell do I know….

I don’t have a prediction for China. On one hand the country is considered “rich”. On the other hand, they are virtually dependent on american consumers. When we can’t afford to buy crap anymore, the musical chairs stop. Culturally, Chinese view money differently than I would say here. Typically, at least in the previous generations, you don’t buy things on “credit”. So it will take probably generation 2 or 3 to start adopting consumerism. .The other thing, the majority of folks are still dirt poor there. How long would it take for consumerism from china to even come close to U.S…Probably never….So…where are folks going to find all the spenders….Maybe we’ll have discovered an alien race in another planet by then 🙂

[Coronita]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-guy]hmm

I don’t know FLU, suppose you are right but I have been hearing that the only country who is going to be in worse shape than the EU (as far as aging population) is Japan followed closely by China.

But you are usually right so I will take your word for it.[/quote]

LOL….You are kidding right? What the hell do I know….

I don’t have a prediction for China. On one hand the country is considered “rich”. On the other hand, they are virtually dependent on american consumers. When we can’t afford to buy crap anymore, the musical chairs stop. Culturally, Chinese view money differently than I would say here. Typically, at least in the previous generations, you don’t buy things on “credit”. So it will take probably generation 2 or 3 to start adopting consumerism. .The other thing, the majority of folks are still dirt poor there. How long would it take for consumerism from china to even come close to U.S…Probably never….So…where are folks going to find all the spenders….Maybe we’ll have discovered an alien race in another planet by then 🙂

[Author]

Posts