Topic 1
Social security is not a savings account where you put your money and expect to get it back out. It is a system where the working people pay for those that are unable to work. Therefore, does it really makes sense the Richest Minnesotans receive the same social security payment as a poor citizen. How can this make sense?
Topic 2
College tuition is high, however shouldn't it be raised significantly? This way the 25% that can easily afford it will pay more. And the 75% that can't would get additional financial aid that would offset the increase. (ie wealthy pay more, non-wealthy pay the same..) How can this not make sense?
My Opinion
- Everything he says makes perfect sense. Why are we spending tax dollars where they are not needed? On people that don't need them....
- Everything he says makes absolutely no sense. Why would we punish people for having led a conservative life style and accumulating some degree of wealth? Where is the wealthy/non-wealthy line? Won't this incent people to not save? Wouldn't these be the equivalent of additional taxes?
- Maybe he is a Closet Liberal after all...
- ????
5 comments:
I appreciate the Gunyou recap.
With regards to Social Security. Make it a sliding scale. Everyone should get something. Not everyone should get the same amount. If my investments afford me a comfortable lifestyle, give me less. Meanwhile, my neighbors--who haven't made foolish choices, just never achieved wealth--need more. This doesn't trouble me. There's a Swedish word--lagom--which means, roughly, just enough. Not too much, not too little. I wish we had a better sense of lagom here.
Regarding college tuition. Interesting, but too simple. It's complex, not least because it involves the sacrifices/earnings of the parents as well as the initiative/debt of the student. I don't have a perfect solution off the top of my head, but that isn't it.
---Annie
How and/or who is going to decide if your neighbors "just never achieved wealth" or "made foolish choices"?
Also, what net worth equals no Social Security payments?
At what net worth does the reduction begin?
Thoughts?
How do we determine if they had it coming? I guess I just don't care. Plenty of very good people lost their shirts these past two years and I'm not much interested in being punative about measuring their degree of fault. I think everyone deserves a certain level of dignity in their dotage--again lagom. There are formulae in place now to determine COLA and retirement age and such--I'm sure the same actuaries could determine a reasonable scale. Does that seem like a crazy notion? It doesn't seem like it to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
FWIW, I think one of the most sensible ways to rein in the imbalance in the social security entitlements is to raise the retirement age by a year or two. Life expectancy has changed, our system can change along with it.
--Annie
Wow. Apparently it's not as simple as it looks to me.
Social Security isn't an insurance program or old-age investment. Phase it out in favor of individual accounts, and then "we" don't have to worry, care about or decide how much "they" get to take out of it. It's THEIR money (and our money is OUR money). If we start phasing it out now, it will be gone just about the time it will go completely bust if we don't. Simple.
College tuition ought to be whatever it is in the free market, without the billions of taxpayer dollars that subsidize it. Once the free market catches up with it, prices can turn around and start back down to something reasonable. Of course, a few ultra-liberal professors will have to start actually teaching something of value, but that will be a great education for them, as well. More learning, less cost. Simple.
J. Ewing
"Therefore, does it really makes sense the Richest Minnesotans receive the same social security payment as a poor citizen. How can this make sense?"
Rich people pay into it, therefore it makes sense that they should be paid out of it. As a practical political matter, Social Security has never been means tested because it gives everyone a stake in the program, not just the politically uninfluential poor.
This is a basic political problem in Mr. Gunyou's message. Basically, he wants to soak the rich. Take away their SS benefits, make them pay more in college tuition, make them take on more of the costs associated with our aging population. The problem is that the people he wants to soak are in the best position to influence the population and he is asking them to influence it to their disadvantage. Politically, that just isn't easy to do.
Social Security is in fact different three things, which are often in conflict or at the very least pull the program in different directions. It's a pension program, an insurance program, and it's a welfare program.
Post a Comment