My idea to reduce poverty and eliminate social program spending.

[JMapleton]

No provision for debt? What if you're already in debt when you enter into the programme, or you go into debt because you actually needed the 10% of your paycheck to keep afloat?

Also, forced saving doesn't really eliminate one of the major problems that got you into the situation in the first place - the almost irrational desire to buy lots of useless shit.

Just like my point in the previous post, people who are in debt still pay into FICA without complaint. Why is this any different?

And you are correct, forced savings will not end people's wreckless spending. But at least society will not have to support these people when they're older if they have a savings account.

 

[Anarchist420]

College kids pay into FICA with no complaint, right?

Some complain and rightfully so.

 

[gevorg]

Sounds very dictatorial with severe case of nanny state.

Bring back home economics in high school.

:thumbsup:

 

[JMapleton]

The solution isn't for the government to forcefully take our money because it knows whats best for us. The solution is to keep spending and taxes low, yet maintain reasonable social investment programs for citizens in an effort to help them rise out of poverty, not a free ride with little incentive to get out. These social investment programs could be college assistance, daycare assistance while going to school, food stamps that can only be used for raw ingredients so people are forced to learn to cook if they want to eat, etc. but they'd all be time limited and contingent on the individual not committing crimes and using birth control.

If they can't better themselves after using the time limited social investment programs then it's on private charities to help them out.

I'm generally against socialism and the government safety nets but even I can admit that our social programs in this country is not the problem for government spending. The problem is our military adventurism and desire to police the world. We have hundreds of military bases throughout the world and spend 10 times as much on military expenses than the 2nd place country.

This is not going to change however because governments we fear (but shouldn't), like China and Russia are building up their militaries to match ours. During the next 30 years I only see our military strengthening our of intimidation for other nations and a constant thread of terrorism (which will never end).

It's really a sad situation. Because of the political situation we have made enemies we cannot get rid of. They will never defeat us on the battlefield. But they will defeat us by causing us to go broke paying for the battlefield.

 

[JMapleton]

Sounds very dictatorial with severe case of nanny state.

So do you support the Social Security? Because that's literally the same thing.

I'm just giving you and your heirs the option to KEEP your own money.

How is that a bad thing?

 

[JMapleton]

Bring back home economics in high school.

LOL. That will do nothing. The problem is people's attitude today. I've spoken to many many people about this.

A large portion of the population has a YOLO attitude when it comes to personal finance. "I could die tomorrow!" Many people simple do not care to save or invest, even if they know how. They know someone will support them when they're old.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Just like my point in the previous post, people who are in debt still pay into FICA without complaint. Why is this any different?

Because this separation of savings and debt is counter-productive to your ultimate goal, which seems to be forced financial responsibility.It's almost always better to pay off debt before contributing to savings, aside from maybe having an emergency fund. Forcing people to contribute to savings while ignoring any debt that they may have, while at the same time removing a large amount of most people's ability to reduce that debt, is not responsible. It's the exact opposite.

Instead, I think you should decide on an income level people require to survive - enough to pay rent, utilities, food, etc. Then, a minimum percentage of pre-tax income above that (I would keep it at 10% to be honest) is exempted from tax and transferred to this savings scheme. This has the advantage of not treating adults like children, it has the advantage of giving people the ability to exercise some financial responsibility of their own while mandating responsibility over some of their disposable income, and it provides an incentive, by reducing tax paid, to save more.

EDIT: realised I didn't really answer your question. The reason this should be different is because you're trying to improve it. It's counter-intuitive to try revise something and yet not fix any of the problems of the previous revision.

 

[nanette1985]

The cruelty I see so much of here is sad. I'm sick and tired of the attitude that people who get government help are all lowlifes.

Some are.

<My proposal is that everybody gets to know the person that is benefitting by their taxes and fees. Many of those beneficiaries are lowlife rich people (farm subsidies, for example. I'm from a farm family. My family doesn't get any of those subsidies).

If you do end up with deadbeats, then there should be a way to stop your $ from going to them.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

You don't have to force people to save via government policy and frankly doing so is going to lead to unintended consequences which any political policy or mandate will be unable to steer away from until there enough political support to do so, as with most government based policies and/or mandates.

If you really want to promote savings then allow interest rates to work in tandem with the market. Simply allowing interest rates to climb (or fall) in line with the market will make saving money more attractive to people without attaching it to some government mandate or having the federal reserve attempt to play lever pushing game that only benefits those who control the majority of assets in society. Additionally you cannot force people to save and then expect them to keep up a economy dependent on people spending every last dime they get. In other words you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, so you most decide what is best, or better yet allow other people to decide for themselves without the interference of government or the fed and its manipulation of interest rates.

 

[child of wonder]

I'm generally against socialism and the government safety nets but even I can admit that our social programs in this country is not the problem for government spending. The problem is our military adventurism and desire to police the world. We have hundreds of military bases throughout the world and spend 10 times as much on military expenses than the 2nd place country.

This is not going to change however because governments we fear (but shouldn't), like China and Russia are building up their militaries to match ours. During the next 30 years I only see our military strengthening our of intimidation for other nations and a constant thread of terrorism (which will never end).

It's really a sad situation. Because of the political situation we have made enemies we cannot get rid of. They will never defeat us on the battlefield. But they will defeat us by causing us to go broke paying for the battlefield.

Take a look at the fedetal budget and how much of it is for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and other welfare type programs. It makes up a massive amount of the budget.

However, I don't think the government should just cut all assistance to citizens and give them the finger. We need to change the mentality behind that assistance. It should be a short-term investment in a fellow citizen so they can better themselves, not a way of life.

Further, I completely agree on reducing military spending. Most of it is wasted anyway and we have no business policing the world.

 

[Kntx]

I like that idea floating around Switzerland (i think?) of the guaranteed monthly income. Every adult gets some amount guaranteed per month. Let's say $3000. You have your $3000, government health service, education, defense, police and not much else.

 

[raildogg]

I like that idea floating around Switzerland (i think?) of the guaranteed monthly income. Every adult gets some amount guaranteed per month. Let's say $3000. You have your $3000, government health service, education, defense, police and not much else.

What if the government fails? What if there is a change in leadership? Will the people then learn to deal with things on their own? After all, these people are dependent on their monthly $3000 checks. Another dependent society.

What we need is less politicians, less regulations, less spin, less religious leaders. What is needed is strong individualism - not in a mean, cruel and uncaring way. We need people to be strong and not be misled. We need them to think on their own without schools forcefeeding them various ideas.

Of course, that requires effort and we don't want to do that stuff so we would rather listen to our priests, politicians, Presidents, CEOs or whoever else. We would rather be told how and what to do.

 

[JMapleton]

Take a look at the fedetal budget and how much of it is for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, and other welfare type programs. It makes up a massive amount of the budget.

The vast majority is SS and Medicare. Since those are programs available to everyone, I would not include them in the same category as welfare and food stamps, which are meant for low income people.

Benefits to low income people make up a very small portion of the population and without those programs, crime would likely be much much higher. I actually don't have a problem with food stamps or welfare, as long as it doesn't get out of control.

 

[Svnla]

Interesting thread and there were some good suggestions.

I think we need to move away from the "where is my monthly check/freebies from guverment" attitude from so many US citizens (and growing fast). We need to have the new attitude of "you don't work = you don't eat. No excuse. Period".

I have been to several developing countries around the world and the truly poors (less than $2/day) don't sit around and whine about their self inflicted wounds/troubles like the freeloaders in the US.

 

[Tripperdude]

Currently the system we know called "Social Security" is a scam. People pay into it all their life and if they get sick one day when their 60 years old, all that money they paid is gone...Phase out these scam systems like Social Security and other programs and allow people to build something they own.

Your post is wrong on so many levels and I will not discuss them here on this forum...but I will say that the problem is not "social spending" but the Trillions of Dollars our government hands out each year in Corporate Welfare and Largess. You wonder what made America great? Subsidies!

I am very surprised the moderators would allow this thread here at all, knowing the penchant of some of them to slap the hands of others for even the most innocent of off-topic remarks.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I like that idea floating around Switzerland (i think?) of the guaranteed monthly income. Every adult gets some amount guaranteed per month. Let's say $3000. You have your $3000, government health service, education, defense, police and not much else.

The basic guaranteed income idea was first pushed out into the arena of public debate by Milton Friedman. Its however relies on government removing all other forms of welfare and social spending along with a simplification of the tax code itself.

Then there are these other points to consider. First that 3000 US is not 3000 Swiss Francs as the cost of living in Switzerland is actually pretty high. Additionally they do tight controls on immigration and welfare handouts (i.e. you must be a citizen of that nation for 12 years to be eligible for social services), never mind a population demographic where only about 4% of the nation is not of European descent and a low birth rate.

 

[Zaap]

Pfft. Inside of a few months of some 'guaranteed income' scheme in this country only about 2% of the population would actually bother getting up off their asses to produce anything.

Not that it'd matter much anyway, that 3k would pretty much have the value of toilet paper in no time flat.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I think I'd actually support this. However, I would ask that the account be with a specially created government or public non-profit institution, and not a private for-profit bank.

 

[Engineer]

Of course, if you really want to stop the tide of poverty and social programs, quit sending out good paying jobs and replacing them with shitty, low wage service jobs (and I'm not talking about service like lawyers, etc. for the people that will jump in here and cherry pick the 'service' sector jobs to their advantage).

 

[OutHouse]

Currently the system we know called "Social Security" is a scam. People pay into it all their life and if they get sick one day when their 60 years old, all that money they paid is gone.

is clear you dont have a clue on how SS works.

 

[Engineer]

is clear you dont have a clue on how SS works.

Not sure why you think that. If you pay in your entire life and suddenly die in your early 60's, before benefits, and have no spouse to pass the benefits to, you get nothing in return nor does anyone else in your family.

 

[OutHouse]

Not sure why you think that. If you pay in your entire life and suddenly die in your early 60's, before benefits, and have no spouse to pass the benefits to, you get nothing in return nor does anyone else in your family.

getting sick is one thing, dying is another. OP said getting sick.

if i die in 5 minutes, as long as my wife does not remarry she can apply to get my SS benefits when she gets to 55.

 

[Engineer]

getting sick is one thing, dying is another. OP said getting sick.

if i die in 5 minutes, as long as my wife does not remarry she can apply to get my SS benefits when she gets to 55.

I suspect that is what he meant (i.e. get sick and die). Otherwise, I can see your point.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not sure why you think that. If you pay in your entire life and suddenly die in your early 60's, before benefits, and have no spouse to pass the benefits to, you get nothing in return nor does anyone else in your family.

True, & so what?

Traditional Pensions work the same way.

SS is also long term disability insurance with survivor benefits for minor children. For those who do retire, the vast, vast majority of participants, it's an annuity that will never run out, even if you make it past 100.

It's a tradeoff in many respects. Participants gain security while potentially losing other benefits. When you're 80 & can't really go back to work, security is what matters. Other than dying, Seniors' greatest fear is running out of money.

 

[Engineer]

True, & so what?

Never mentioned anything about that. Was just explaining to Outhouse what the OP meant by the 'sick' post.