Link SS benefits to race or gender?

[Allison]

Did anyone see the Republican party's point man on Social Security in the House, Representative Bill Thomas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, on Meet the Press yesterday? He seems to think it's a good idea.


MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how."

A gender adjustment--what does that mean?

REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor.

Now, there are people who are saying, "Gee, this is great. We can get them into a box and maybe we can win some seats in the next election over this issue." This ought not to be about the next election. This is about how we have an opportunity given to us by the president, his willingness to work with us to solve some problems that are here and now, but will only get worse. If we're not in a crisis now, we're in a problem. Wait a few years. We will be in a crisis. We ought to examine all opportunities to solve the problem. Then we can dismiss them. But to not look at them denies us an opportunity to have yet another way to solve our problem.

MR. RUSSERT: So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year?

REP. THOMAS: It's not that you would do it; it's something that you need to look at. Because if you extend the age beyond 78, if you go to 80 or 82, all of those concerns about race, occupation and gender are exacerbated. And you shouldn't just extend the age without understanding the additional complications and unfairness that you're bringing into the system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't look for a simple solution like shifting age without realizing you're creating additional problems for yourself down the road. Same thing with payroll tax. Same thing with individual accounts or other ways to bring additional revenue in the system. All of them should be examined. None of them should be labeled with the pejorative with an opportunity to try to gain seats in the next election. You are doing a disservice to the society if that's your intention in this debate. My goal is to get it as broad as possible, look for bipartisan support and give the president a bill on his desk that he can sign that addresses the real societal inequities that we have with seniors.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people would be treated differently because of their gender or their race?

REP. THOMAS: If we discuss it and the will is not to do it, fine. At least we discussed it. To simply raise the age and find out that you've got gender, race and occupational problems later, I would not be doing the kind of service that I think I have to do. You and I have been around quite a while. We went through the '80s. We went into the '90s. And now we're in the 21st century. We saw the choices that were made in the past. We went to the well over and over again with the same old solutions which really aren't solutions. We've reached the point where we have to fundamentally examine it in my opinion. The president has given us that opportunity. We ought to take it.

[Grundy]

Republicans are going to payout SS based on expected life span for gender and race. For example, would get paid more if you have a shorter life, or you get paid less if you have a longer life.

What about life style, health habits etc? Sounds like insurance.


Here are some life expectancies: http://www.sciway.net/statistics/scsa98/vs/vs8.html

[Post]

They should have income come into play, since there are effects of income upon average life expectancy. Look at the flawed issue with that "wine is good for you" study a bit back. They showed, although wine is nominally good for you when taken once a day, the radical numbers were actually because the people being studied, had a higher likelihood of a better lifestyle if they were able to drink wine once a day than if they couldn't (ie, it wasn't A because of B, it was A and B because of C).

[]LoL[Harm]

Correlative studies are funny that way.

[Allison]

I just don't see how it's doable ... equality under the law and all that. I mean, I can understand how, on the surface, from an actuarial perspective, it might make sense. But if you're going to treat it like private insurance, then you're opening a whole can of worms. Do we then require physicals of everyone applying for SS? Who pays for that? If a woman lives longer, and therefore would receive lesser benefits, then do women have to pay less into the system? If so, then what does that solve? If I'm a woman, and this change were to occur, do I get a refund of a percentage of what I've already paid? If I'm a member of a health club, do I get lesser benefits than someone who is not? Am I penalized for being healthy?

Personally, I think this little ballon was sent up simply to make anything else that's proposed not seem so bad.

Republicans: Hey, how about we discuss linking SS benefits to race and gender?
Democrats: Nooo ... noooo ... anything but that!
Republicans: Anything? Mwuahahahahaha.....

It's a play on the old "Brer Rabbit and the briar patch" trick.

[Roscoes_C&W]

But if the people who live longer also have a better lifestyle which means they make more money don't they also pay more money? How bout we just scrap the whole thing and be done with it? You don't have to think about any of this BS if you just give me my money and let me do what I want with it.

[Boom]

God, if he would only answer a question directly, it would be a lot easier to understand what he is proposing. Every time he is asked about race/gender he answers by saying it shouldn't be used to get votes in the next election. That's a nice answer, but it isn't even in the same universe as the question. Its like asking someone if a technically improper vote should be counted if the voter did nothing wrong, and having him answer by saying that vote challenges shouldn't be targetted or cherry picked. ;)

I am going to have to guess what he is proposing. I am guessing that he is saying everyone should have an equal retirement. So if we decide everyone is entitled to 20 years retirement, and the average woman lives 88 years (made up number) she should start getting her SS benefits at 68 so she gets 20 years of retirement benefits. If an average man lives 80 years, he should get his SS benefits at 60 so he gets his 20 years of retirement benefits. If an average black man lives to be 50, he should start getting his SS benefits at 30 so he gets his full 20 years of retirement benefits. That way the system is fair and everyone gets the same retirement benefits.

That's dumb. The purpose of SS isn't to give everyone an equal retirement. The purpose of SS is to deal with the fact that after a certain age, most people can't work very well and need something to live off of. Since people are too stupid to save up for their own retirements, the government is running a retirement savings plan for everyone and forcing everyone to be a part of it. Otherwise all these old people, who can't work and have no savings, would be showing up at hospitals or whatever and the government would have to pay for them anyway. Either that or let them starve. Since we won't let them starve, and we can't afford to run a charity for all the retired people, we do social security and force people to pay into a government run retirement plan. That's the theory anyway, I know it doesn't work the way its supposed to, but that is the theory.

If this guy thinks the point of SS is to give everyone an equal retirement, he is missing the point. The point of SS is to take care of people who are too old to work. If we decide that 68 is the retirement age, then that is the cut off for everyone. If women live longer than men and get more years of SS, hey, that's the breaks.

[Post]

"The purpose of SS is to deal with the fact that after a certain age, most people can't work very well and need something to live off of. Since people are too stupid to save up for their own retirements, the government is running a retirement savings plan for everyone and forcing everyone to be a part of it. Otherwise all these old people, who can't work and have no savings, would be showing up at hospitals or whatever and the government would have to pay for them anyway. Either that or let them starve. Since we won't let them starve, and we can't afford to run a charity for all the retired people, we do social security and force people to pay into a government run retirement plan."

Exactly. SS, atleast in theory, isn't for the benefit of the person it's providing money for, it's for society's benefit of not having to bare the burden of unplanned retirement (or getting hurt, or having the person who provides for you hurt or killed, etc). It isn't just a simple retirement fund.

[Murrie]

I say link it to the one and only thing that matters. How much you paid in.

Pay in 1.5 million over your lifetime - you get access to 1.5 mil the day after you retire.

Pay in 250,000 and you get access to 250,000 the day after you retire.

Spend your loser life on welfare... whatever welfare pittance checks you've had coming in can continue but you get nothing from SS.


It should have nothing to due with age, sex, complexions, vampiric tendencies, skin tone, hormones, monophones, pant cuff, or any other bullshit..
Simple retirement.
You make a killing on the stock market and retire at 35, any and all monies paid into SS should be available to you the next day.

I mean it is your money right?

[Roscoes_C&W]

I'd spend it on hookers and cocaine.

[Murrie]

we need to get Roscoes more cash, I mean nobody does more for the economy than Pimps and Pushers.

Just look at the high end spinner market; thats millions and millions of dollars that pimps and pushes spend just on flashy spinny wheels for their Escalades. Toss in gold teeth and they could keep the enconomy of a state like Idaho rolling all by themselves!

[Post]

"I say link it to the one and only thing that matters. How much you paid in."

So... Those people who are on SS because they got hurt before they paid much money in, shouldn't be getting any money?

[Murrie]

Those people who are on SS because they got hurt before they paid much money in, shouldn't be getting any money?

Family. Friends. Religion. Employer. Only then Government.


Why is it everytime something unfortunate happens its the governments job to swoop in and make everything alright?

[Boom]

I don't think the government should have to, but what is the choice?

Lets say we have someone who screwed up and didn't plan for his retirement, or got hurt young and can't work anymore. No family, can't work, not entitled to any employment benefits, etc. We have two choices, either we let him starve or the government puts him up at a shelter or hospital. We aren't going to let him starve, its just not our nature. If we put him up at a shelter or a hospital it would be a huge burden on us responsible taxpayers who aren't dumb and who are planning for our own retirement. So what do we do?

[MickeyFinn]

I guess everybody has different opinions on what "Everybody is created equal" means.

[Allison]

Not to mention ... when people don't have money to feed and shelter themselves or their families, they will resort to crime. SS, again in theory, isn't designed for charity, but for the protection of society.

And Boom, if you thought that guy was evasive in that transcript I posted, you should have seen the whole interview. Every answer was the same: Not that we would do that, but it's something that needs to be discussed. And this shoudln't be looked at as an opportunity to gain seats.

It got pretty old after a while. I can't believe this guy has had something like 15 terms.

[Hammer]

You have a much much smaller general portion that everyone pays, say 2%, to cover the truly unfortunate. The other 6.5% goes into a personal retirement account. It's the only long term solution. When the population of workers drops to 2/1 or 1/1 you won't be able to tax your grandchildren enough to pay the benefits promised.

[Post]

"Why is it everytime something unfortunate happens its the governments job to swoop in and make everything alright?"

I agree in your order. As a matter of fact, SS isn't considered enough for someone to really rely upon for living. The problem is, you cannot force those people to pay, else it's atleast as bad (and worse, IMO), as making everyone pay for SS. I also feel in the long run, paying for SS is actually cheaper than having to pay for these people that were stupid and/or got hurt early in their lives, and needs the money. Allowing them to die from starvation (even barely living on the streets) are not options.

[Boom]

Hammer's idea is pretty good. Seperate programs for the "unfortunates" and for personal retirement deals. Its kind of sad that the government has to force us to be responsible and take care of ourselves by providing for our own futures. If people weren't dumb, everyone would be setting up their own retirement accounts and very few people would need SS. But its human nature to live for today and hope the future takes care of itself.

[MickeyFinn]

It's not really fair to expect the average 20 year old kid to think about his future when he can hardly even read

[Murrie]

im not disputing that government has a role in helping people out. THose that truely do have a need should not be left out in the cold pennyless. As Alli wizely points out those without will often resort to crime so we cannot simply abondon them hopeing that they arnt going to be a problem, becuase either way we will be paying for them.

As it is right now SS is simply another income redistrotion scheme. The monies paid into SS are not being saved for said individuals retirement, that money is being sent right out the door. If the congress decided tomorrow that no one would get another penny of SS there isnt a thing in the world that would get that money back into the hands of those that earn it.

Hammers idea i can sort of agree with, where there are 2 plans. One is a Retirement investment, where a small part of your income is taxed to be used to assist those that can no longer work and havnt planned correctly otherwise. One should be a welfare type deal where if your incapable of doing for yourself the gov steps in and does for you.


Mickeys onto the real problem though. Too many people leave the shitholes of retardation and stupification that is the government school system without the necessary tools to make it in life. Too bad no one in power actually cares.

[Swifty_Johnson]

The problem with Social Security is it was created at a time when people didn't live that much longer after they retired, or died before they collected. Now that we are living longer and the mortaility rates are dropping, more people are living to collect.

This means that there are less people paying and more collecting.

You'll either need to,

Reduce benifates
Increase the tax.

Face it, the money we paided into Social Security is long gone. I'd rather see retirement taken out of the hands of the govement and placed into the people's hands. We also forget, that private retiremenet funds have way less overhead then the goverment.

Swifty

[spyder913]

no the problem is that it is like investing without actually investing anything. when you normally invest the money sits there and earns you more.. but when it's in SS, it just gets paid out to the (ever growing number of) current people who qualify for it. this is an equation that has serious problems as soon as the rate of outflow is greater than the rate of inflow. it won't get any better because it's a broken pyramid scheme =)

[MickeyFinn]

Face it, the money we paided into Social Security is long gone.

There's an argument for putting the money toward public education if I ever saw one :P

[Leiriel]

if i'm not mistaken there is a cap to social security deductions. if you are above a certain income....you do not pay into it, and i think it's around 100k. it would be an easy fix to raise the income cap and would increase payments into the ss fund. the biggest thing though is congress needs to get their grubby paws out of it...no more using ss funds for other things.

/edit found the income cap 87,900 for paying into social security...over that you pay in nothing.

[]LoL[Harm]

That's okay, rich people need the extra income they save from not paying into SS. It's always best to let the middle class and below shoulder the burden and let the rich get richer.