• chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    10 months ago

    Problem is that everyone else’s kids pay for your retirement, which means that your incentive to do the work of raising kids goes away; Social Security puts the load on people who have kids to turn them into the next generation of productive workers. It’s great if you never raise kids, but it’s a pretty raw deal if you do raise kids.

    I think it more closely follows social insurance than simply asking for a handout from everyone else’s kids. Afterall, you are paying into it until you are eligible, and when you are eligible, a person just one year younger than you is supporting you. Saying that it’s just “kids” paying into it makes it seem like we all stop paying into Social Security when we turn 25. I agree that the onus falls to the next generation in so much that it is their burden to pay into, but making it seem like we are forcing them into baby farms to push out kids to pay for our retirement is a bit dramatic. The population would have to take a pretty drastic nosedive over one generation to cause the system to collapse for the current retired generation, and the population numbers of the US don’t support that line of logic.

    The biggest issue that we are running into with Social Security is the Wage Base Limit that stops the payment of Social Security tax after you are taxed a certain amount. It adjusts for inflation each year, which is great, but it doesn’t adjust for the disparity in wealth. Sure, the average person makes a certain amount per year, but that average doesn’t mean anything anymore when it’s the smallest percentage of earners in America. There are too many that don’t pay up to the cap due to their low wage, and too many that make more than the cap and don’t pay any more, and so we are left with a shrinking bank of fund as the wealth disparity increases each year. If we want to fix Social Security, we don’t need to set up “generation funds”, we need to abolish the Wage Base Limit and force everyone to pay in the 6.8% they owe, instead of just relying on the bottom 60% of Americans to do what they can.

    As far as 401(k) goes, those are dependant on a volatile market, and often struggle to meet inflation, making them just slightly better than hiding your money in a mattress, but if you hide it in your mattress you don’t have to pay a fee if there is a medical emergency you needs the funds for. 401(k) is great for people with true disposable income in the excess of thousands a month, but there aren’t enough of those people around anymore, and they aren’t the ones that will rely on Social Security, anyway.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think it more closely follows social insurance than simply asking for a handout from everyone else’s kids. Afterall, you are paying into it until you are eligible, and when you are eligible, a person just one year younger than you is supporting you. Saying that it’s just “kids” paying into it makes it seem like we all stop paying into Social Security when we turn 25. I

      I think more importantly, it suggests having children is necessary. And it is not. I say that as a loving parent.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        It doesn’t require having children, but working population growth in general. Some of that is people having children, some is immigration, some of that is increasing workers by raising retirement age

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Endless population growth is both unnecessary and harmful to the environment. That’s one of the reasons we only had one child. One child replaces two of us.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s not the topic of discussion. Funding of social security is designed around increasing working population, regardless of whether that’s desirable in other ways

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      While I also think the wage cap should be lifted, it won’t have as big an effect as you expect. Remember ss is somewhat progressive (higher income get less percentage return), ss benefits on the high end are subject to income tax, and that benefits are also capped to match the wage cap. High earners are putting in more for less getting back, at least to some extent

      If you raise the wage cap, there’s an argument the benefits should increase for higher earners as well. Remember this is not welfare, it’s meant to be a social insurance program, which has implications