US retirement confidence at 23-year low

So poor communities would have poor retirees?
And rich communities would have rich retirees?

What if someone moves?
 
Banned said:
So poor communities would have poor retirees?
And rich communities would have rich retirees?

What if someone moves?
Click to expand...

Is that stuff between your ears just to fill the space?

The tax would be flat. The benefits would be determined by how long you pay into the program. If someone moves, they don't collect benefits from that locality. In poverty stricken communities, the federal government would step in and provide assistance.

Pretty simple, no?
 
Sycamore said:
Is that stuff between your ears just to fill the space?

The tax would be flat. The benefits would be determined by how long you pay into the program. If someone moves, they don't collect benefits from that locality. In poverty stricken communities, the federal government would step in and provide assistance.

Pretty simple, no?
Click to expand...


Sounds like SS without the benefit of centralization (and thus substantially higher administrative costs). Why would this be superior to SS?
 
Sycamore said:
Is that stuff between your ears just to fill the space?

The tax would be flat. The benefits would be determined by how long you pay into the program. If someone moves, they don't collect benefits from that locality. In poverty stricken communities, the federal government would step in and provide assistance.

Pretty simple, no?
Click to expand...

Considering the transient nature of our population, the idea that you lose your retirement by moving is a disastor.

It would also make it much more difficult for people to relocate for better career options, since they would have to abandon the money they paid into their retirement.
 
Dungheap said:
If instead of foregoing tax revenues the government collected taxes and paid them out to individuals' 401k account with the same distribution as the 401k tax expenditures, I don't think there is a politician alive that wouldn't blush at proposing it. It'd be a non-starter.

It'd be a program that gave rich people that don't need it lots of money for retirement and poor people that do need it nothing at all.
Click to expand...
and when they throw it in the general budget and call it a drawer full of IOUs?
 
WinterBorn said:
Considering the transient nature of our population, the idea that you lose your retirement by moving is a disastor.

It would also make it much more difficult for people to relocate for better career options, since they would have to abandon the money they paid into their retirement.
Click to expand...

There are other options as well. There are those that support a system that sustains the life of those over a certain age, no matter how long they've lived there. Of course the regular retirement age would likely be slightly higher than it is now.
 
Sycamore said:
Is that stuff between your ears just to fill the space?

The tax would be flat. The benefits would be determined by how long you pay into the program. If someone moves, they don't collect benefits from that locality. In poverty stricken communities, the federal government would step in and provide assistance.

Pretty simple, no?
Click to expand...
no.
 
Sycamore said:
Because if mistakes are made, or abuses occur, they're restricted to the locality in which they occur.
Click to expand...


But isn't the down side to that the fact that the the cost is borne by the locality and cannot be spread among everyone. It's a whole lot easier for the entire US to bear the costs than it is for Mousefart, Montana.
 
Dungheap said:
That's silly. You can play by the rules as they eixst while advocating that they ought to be changed.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with that but she never explained why she was against the program when I asked so I don't know if its for ideological reasons or because she feels better returns could be had elsewhere. I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha I'm just trying to understand her position.
 
cawacko said:
I agree 100% with that but she never explained why she was against the program when I asked so I don't know if its for ideological reasons or because she feels better returns could be had elsewhere. I'm not trying to play a game of gotcha I'm just trying to understand her position.
Click to expand...


Word.
 
Dungheap said:
But isn't the down side to that the fact that the the cost is borne by the locality and cannot be spread among everyone. It's a whole lot easier for the entire US to bear the costs than it is for Mousefart, Montana.
Click to expand...
are you sure about that? most small towns I know of (born and raised in one) the older generation worked until their 80s and not because they had to, but because they wanted to.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
are you sure about that? most small towns I know of (born and raised in one) the older generation worked until their 80s and not because they had to, but because they wanted to.
Click to expand...
yeah now they work at Wally World and sling burgers.
Must be becuase they want to.
Things are different now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top