What to do with the elderly?

[Kathryn]

The Soylent Corporation has solutions.

But seriously this is a slow moving trainwreck. Some republicans are threatening to eliminate Social Security which would be fatal to many elderly. The fact is our business model has changed over the last 50 years and workers make less, can save less, and the cost of living has gone up, all while the wealthy get richer. The middle class is being squeezed with more costs of living, and as they age what sort of security will they have to cover life costs? Will reverse mortgages mean wealth will be siphoned off from the next generation, and into the bank accounts of corporations? Seems likely.

I think the only solution will be to limit corporate greed and adsjust tax rates so that the wealthy contribute more to our social financial stability. The elderly will require more medical care and that will bleed both Medicare and insurance companies dry. Of course insurance companies will raise rates so that they make their profit margins.

Who is threatening to eliminate SS? Names please. Thanks.

 

[PureX]

In the USA, the Social Security tax was designed like a savings account, for all workers; on the books. It is combination of equal parts worker and employer contribution; 6.2% each. This SS tax is above and beyond the income tax, and was designed to be like a personal retirement fund for elderly retirees. A 40 year work career, can add up to almost a livable wage at retirement based on where you retire; Florida.

It was intended to provide a living for everyone over the age of 65 regardless of work history. Although a strong work history would provide a better benefit. It's important to understand that the whole point of the program is that no one over the age of 65 has to worry about dying in poverty.

The SS program was revised under President Reagan, and with the help of several future Presidents, it created a large surplus in the $trillions. This surplus was still growing and was projected to meets the future needs of the elderly, until 2050 or so.

Reagan was the first president to rob the SS till. His "trickle-down" theory and tax cuts for the rich were a complete load of crap, and were failing miserably. So he robbed SS to try and cover that failure. And of course the "IOU" he put in the empty till after stealing the money is really just a "you owe you" since the government has no money of it's own to pay for anything. And every president except Obama robbed the till after Reagan got away with it. And not only that, they keep cheating on the purpose of SS by making people work longer and for less of a pay out to the point that it no longer pays for their survival. Which was the whole point of the program.

I would also clean up SS and reverse the trend of the Left, which is to allow able bodied young people to collect social security. If you are a drunk or drug addict you get social security, to buy drugs and booze; electronic debit card. This further borrowing from the elderly fund, puts all the elderly, who paid into the fund, at risk.

The "left" did no such thing. I agree that there is some abuse of the SS program regarding those with illness and injury, but that is not a problem with the idea of the program or it's intent. That's a problem with there being too lax oversight.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There still is, but under a different name.
Now it's "Friend Of The Court".

Oh, they will drop dads into jail? I did not know it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, they will drop dads into jail? I did not know it.

It's the one are I know of where if a
debt isn't paid, the debtor is jailed.

In ordinary civil court, there are court
orders to pay, but the court itself doesn't
enforce them. It only gives the plaintiff
the right to garnish wages, etc.

 

[F1fan]

Who is threatening to eliminate SS? Names please. Thanks.

I'm a bit surprized you haven't heard about this, it is has been widely reported in reputable media sources. Biden addressed this directly in the State of the Union address.

The names are Mike Lee and Rick Scott, among others. Rick Scott has been a huge advocate for this:

A plan put forward by Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who headed the committee in charge of electing Republicans to the Senate, called for sunsetting all federal programs every five years.

Here's some of what the Rescue America plan says:

• "Eliminate federal programs that can be done locally. Any government function that can be handled locally should be."
• "All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again."

Again, that's "all federal programs."

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/11/1156132516/republicans-say-they-wont-cut-social-security-so-why-does-it-keep-coming-up

Now the republicans are reeling back these ideas, largely due to Biden calling them out during his address. Notice the republicans want austerity, but offer no solutions if their plans lead to disaster, as austerity tends to do.

Rick Scott Drops Social Security From Plan as G.O.P. Retreats From Entitlement Cuts (Published 2023)

The backtracking by the Florida Republican came after bipartisan criticism and signaled how completely the G.O.P. has pulled away from calls to overhaul the nation’s entitlement programs.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Mock Turtle]

In the USA, the Social Security tax was designed like a savings account, for all workers; on the books. It is combination of equal parts worker and employer contribution; 6.2% each. This SS tax is above and beyond the income tax, and was designed to be like a personal retirement fund for elderly retirees. A 40 year work career, can add up to almost a livable wage at retirement based on where you retire; Florida.

The SS program was revised under President Reagan, and with the help of several future Presidents, it created a large surplus in the $trillions. This surplus was still growing and was projected to meets the future needs of the elderly, until 2050 or so.

What happened is the boneheads in Washington; stupid and corrupt leaders, decided to raid that SS surplus; slush fund, and thereby jeopardized the future for this retirement program. The Government does pay interest on this "loan", like the rest of the National Debt. However, the interest alone, on the surplus, is not enough compared to having the entire surplus back in their own pool. I would create a law that says the US Government has to pay back the SS, stolen funds, in full, before it fund anything else, so the fund is self standing and back in the black. We can take money from other programs since this is not a loan or a windfall, but it is returning stolen property.

I would also clean up SS and reverse the trend of the Left, which is to allow able bodied young people to collect social security. If you are a drunk or drug addict you get social security, to buy drugs and booze; electronic debit card. This further borrowing from the elderly fund, puts all the elderly, who paid into the fund, at risk. The young people, now on SS, would need to migrate to other programs, just not SS. Young people should be contributing to their own future; old age, and not be a parasite living off the artheritic backs of the present day elderly.

I would ever tax campaign contributions; treat each campaign as a corporation, and give the revenue to the SS fund. It was campaign donations and politicians who ripped off the funds, so it is only fitting we get the money back, with interest.

We all know the Left wants Socialism, so they will do what it takes to upset any self sufficiency programs, such as SS. If the program was to collapse, they can use Socialism as an excuse to take it over. As long as it is sound, this is harder to sell. We need to reverse the steps taken, designed to collapse self standing programs. Taxing campaign funds has the spin off advantage of using the IRS to audit, even dark money. This may have prevented the original rip off and five us early warning of all adverse government actions, so they are more transparent and accountable.

I can only speak for the UK, and where seemingly the UK elderly have lagged behind those in much of Europe as to benefits and income - not sure now as to where we stand. But there have been some gains, like free travel and such in recent times.

Probably some of the things that the elderly might complain about is the reliance on technology (like smartphones) for much of our transactions these days. And even if such can be more convenient they often mean costs that aren't proportional to what is gained. For example, I could have one and might use it a bit but the expense is just not worth it. I prefer all internet interactions to be on a larger screen like a laptop and don't require much of what else is on offer with such mobile devices. Hence I can see why so many of those older might not be so keen to take on such new technology, even if, like myself, there is no problem with using them.

Similarly, so many devices now rely on menu systems to operate them, and being as the elderly are not renowned for their superiority as to memory use, such devices seem more aimed at the young. Although the elderly do have some devices that take into account such things.

There are similar other aspects where the elderly are not taken into consideration so much. For example - adverts on TV - where the flashing or quickly changing imagery is just so tiring and almost always aimed at those younger, such that no doubt like many, I just mute all adverts now and wait until they finish before the TV gets my attention once more. Not that I watch too much now anyway.

But overall, the thread was more about all the aspects that a changing demographic has seemingly forced on so many nations - with the trend as to multi-generational households going the way of the dodo in so many and the issues that such throws up. Also, too often we see one generation blaming another, but perhaps that was always the case.

The thread was never meant to belittle any particular generation but to pursue ways to make life better for all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A large part of me doesn't understand the question. And I think this question arises because many in this culture were taught to over-value youth and stupidity and criminally under-value age and wisdom.

I'm not sure whether your point is that age necessarily results in wisdom (and knowing you, I doubt it is), but in general, I can understand why many are growing increasingly leery of the idea that age equates to wisdom when they see that many decisions that actually threaten our species (and many other species) are made by older people who are either supposed to be "wise" or are even touted as such by some supporters. Take Putin as an example, or any of the old people in various governments around the world who adopt extremely harmful policies that affect human rights, climate change, and economic stability. And of course, we can't forget the response to the pandemic from the likes of Bolsonaro and Trump.

I realize that age equates to wisdom in some cases, but I absolutely don't think this is a reliable rule to go by, nor do I find age to be a better predictor of wisdom than other factors such as education, openness to new ideas and new evidence, and empathy.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm a bit surprized you haven't heard about this, it is has been widely reported in reputable media sources. Biden addressed this directly in the State of the Union address.

The names are Mike Lee and Rick Scott, among others. Rick Scott has been a huge advocate for this:

A plan put forward by Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who headed the committee in charge of electing Republicans to the Senate, called for sunsetting all federal programs every five years.

Here's some of what the Rescue America plan says:

• "Eliminate federal programs that can be done locally. Any government function that can be handled locally should be."
• "All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again."

Again, that's "all federal programs."

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/11/1156132516/republicans-say-they-wont-cut-social-security-so-why-does-it-keep-coming-up

Now the republicans are reeling back these ideas, largely due to Biden calling them out during his address. Notice the republicans want austerity, but offer no solutions if their plans lead to disaster, as austerity tends to do.

Rick Scott Drops Social Security From Plan as G.O.P. Retreats From Entitlement Cuts (Published 2023)

The backtracking by the Florida Republican came after bipartisan criticism and signaled how completely the G.O.P. has pulled away from calls to overhaul the nation’s entitlement programs.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard it thrown around but I also have heard the other side of the story. I'm a bit surprised you haven't heard about this. It's been widely reported in reputable media sources.

Senator Rick Scott refutes President's claims he wants to cut social security and medicare

Back in 2020, Scott said this: Social Security and Medicare “must be preserved, reformed and protected.” Examining Rick Scott's Claim That Medicare, Social Security Will Soon Go 'Bankrupt' - FactCheck.org

Also, this about Mike Lee:
“In repeatedly quoting my 2010 remarks today, President Biden conveniently left out that critical detail – that even when I voiced that position, I insisted that we honor the reliance interests of those who have paid into the system,” said Lee. “He also ignored in my 12 years in the Senate, I have never proposed abolishing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. Instead, I have offered solutions to improve those programs and move them toward solvency.”

Sen. Mike Lee claims 2010 comments about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid taken out of context

Utah Senator Mike Lee has responded to criticism he recently received on social media after users resurfaced comments he made in 2010 about wanting to “pull up” and “get rid of&#8…

www.abc4.com

Sounds like typical election and political crap to me. I'm pretty skeptical about any of that stuff but hey that's just me.

 

[F1fan]

I've heard it thrown around but I also have heard the other side of the story. I'm a bit surprised you haven't heard about this. It's been widely reported in reputable media sources.

Senator Rick Scott refutes President's claims he wants to cut social security and medicare

Back in 2020, Scott said this: Social Security and Medicare “must be preserved, reformed and protected.” Examining Rick Scott's Claim That Medicare, Social Security Will Soon Go 'Bankrupt' - FactCheck.org

Also, this about Mike Lee:
“In repeatedly quoting my 2010 remarks today, President Biden conveniently left out that critical detail – that even when I voiced that position, I insisted that we honor the reliance interests of those who have paid into the system,” said Lee. “He also ignored in my 12 years in the Senate, I have never proposed abolishing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. Instead, I have offered solutions to improve those programs and move them toward solvency.”

Sen. Mike Lee claims 2010 comments about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid taken out of context

Utah Senator Mike Lee has responded to criticism he recently received on social media after users resurfaced comments he made in 2010 about wanting to “pull up” and “get rid of&#8…

www.abc4.com

Sounds like typical election and political crap to me. I'm pretty skeptical about any of that stuff but hey that's just me.

Note that a huge part of Scott's reform is cutting SS quite a bit, raising the age, and even ending the program every 5 years which risks it being ended by default. Again, the austerity the Republicans advocate for come at the cost of the marginalized, and protect the wealth of the richest Americans. Is that smart? Is it wise? Is that good social contract for the greedy to be protected at the cost to the less capable? What would Jesus say about this?

Republicans are pretty good at saying contrary things depending on what part of their constituents they are talking to. This differs from a politician changing their views on certain issues, like gay rights. Even republicans have changed their minds permanently on gay rights due to the broader acceptance by society. We will see the effects of republicans being opposed to reproductive rights and cutting taxes for the wealthy as we move towards 2024. The only winning move for republians is to acknowledge SS, Medicaid, tax hikes on the wealthy, and protecting gay and reproductive rights if they want to win in 2024. Those like DeSantis who wants to go the other way will face bad poll numbers.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

When we get old and can no longer serve the pump with our labor, we'd better have some money saved up to pay into the system if we want to keep on living.

Not here in Mexico. Extended families care for their elderly in their homes. It's typical to see them in a chair on the sidewalk outside their homes watching passers by. And not in America, either - yet.

If they can pay into the Money Pump with their savings, they're fine. They can live unmolested. But if they can't, then they have become a "problem". And the solution is that they should die. Quietly. Unnoticed.

I recall how many were willing to sacrifice grammy rather than wear a mask during the pandemic. The solution you describe is the Republican vision, not that of the liberals. So far, grammy still gets government support if she needs it no matter how little savings or family support she has, but that that won't last any longer than liberalism does in the States, which depends on the perspicacity and wisdom of the American voter.

We all know the Left wants Socialism, so they will do what it takes to upset any self sufficiency programs, such as SS.

I think you're confused twice here. First, Bernie and AOC might prefer socialism, but most American liberals are fine with a social democracy combining regulated capitalism with government spending of public dollars on citizens and the commonwealth's infrastructure. Second, it's the Republicans that are the enemy of Social Security and all other government spending that helps ordinary citizens - what American conservatives typically call socialism or Communism. Can we count on a vote for the Republicans to regain control of the government from you?

 

[Kathryn]

Note that a huge part of Scott's reform is cutting SS quite a bit, raising the age, and even ending the program every 5 years which risks it being ended by default. Again, the austerity the Republicans advocate for come at the cost of the marginalized, and protect the wealth of the richest Americans. Is that smart? Is it wise? Is that good social contract for the greedy to be protected at the cost to the less capable? What would Jesus say about this?

Republicans are pretty good at saying contrary things depending on what part of their constituents they are talking to. This differs from a politician changing their views on certain issues, like gay rights. Even republicans have changed their minds permanently on gay rights due to the broader acceptance by society. We will see the effects of republicans being opposed to reproductive rights and cutting taxes for the wealthy as we move towards 2024. The only winning move for republians is to acknowledge SS, Medicaid, tax hikes on the wealthy, and protecting gay and reproductive rights if they want to win in 2024. Those like DeSantis who wants to go the other way will face bad poll numbers.

You don't really think that SS would END every five years do you? No, you don't, or you wouldn't have said that it would "end" every five years. It's not ending.

Personally I believe that all government programs should cut their budgets by five percent but hey, that's just me. Having been very intimately involved in some government programs, I see the massive waste. Massive. Waste. It's horrible. But they'd probably just cut workers' salaries so we'd need something written in to protect those workers from being adversely affected. I'm not talking about "austerity," I'm talking about waste.

By the way, Scott amended his plan so that SS or Medicare specifically (among other programs) are not cut.

"I believe that all federal legislation should sunset in five years, with specific exceptions for Social Security, Medicare, national security, veterans' benefits, and other essential services," Scott wrote in an Op-Ed published online on Friday by the conservative Washington Examiner newspaper. "If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again," he said.

Anyway, Sunset Laws - in which all government programs expire unless they are voted on to continue - are nothing new. Biden himself even proposed one (with no exemption for SSI or Medicare) at one point. It was quickly shot down.

None of this came from Fox News by the way, or any other more conservative source. Reuters and Vox.

 

[Kathryn]

Not here in Mexico. Extended families care for their elderly in their homes. It's typical to see them in a chair on the sidewalk outside their homes watching passers by. And not in America, either - yet.

The life expectancy in Mexico is significantly shorter than in the US. Just wanted to point that out. But I get it, it's a number so it freaks some people out.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The life expectancy in Mexico is significantly shorter than in the US. Just wanted to point that out.

Yes, about four years shorter. It's a poorer country. Professional health care is less accessible, and also less in demand. I don't see the relevance to this discussion, however. Was your point that the families don't have to care as long for their elderly before burying them? If so, I doubt that that is an issue. If they lived longer, their families would care for them longer.