What's your generation and how would you change your government?

[Eric the Green]

(03-26-2022, 08:37 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(03-26-2022, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Raise the cap on the social security tax. But should it be progressive, or means tested? I think that defeats its purpose as a pay as you go program. It was never a wealth redistribution program, and its revenue has been diverted. Instead, it should not be the only social and economic safety net, and not the only tax to be raised either. Other programs should supplement it. Neoliberalism is becoming unworkable in an era when only well-educated people can get a good job. The bosses are giving most of the formerly middle-class manufacturing jobs to robots, and sending many other jobs overseas. If people have no money, no-one will be able to buy the products and services of the smaller workforce unless income guarantees are put in place. Labor saving devices should not just be something that saves money and improves productivity for the bosses alone. They don't own these tech advances, and didn't create them; they belong to all the people. Everyone should benefit. Some occupations like creative people should be paid more than they earn. Hours should be cut back, with wages raised, so that more people can get jobs and more people have more free time. This is so-far the opposite of what has happened over the last 40-plus years. But neoliberalism and trickle-down economics have passed their sell-by date. It was a bad buy to begin with.

The concept of a "pay as you go" program is flawed from the get go, since the entire point of a government program is that private savings/investment are insufficient. If pay as you go works, we might as well just get rid of it for the majority of people and say "be responsible and save" (now that I think about it, the libertarian in me likes this immensely), with possible exceptions for disability, or jobs requiring substantially taxing physical labor.

If saving is not sufficient, it makes more sense for it to be means-tested (the way other forms of welfare are) and progressive (because it doesn't make sense to put the primary burden on young people to pay for old people).

Maybe. If you admit that such a progressive tax and benefits and means-tested program is no longer the social security program, but something different, then you may have a point. It isn't going to happen, though. Social Security works, its funding works, and in requiring people to save when otherwise they probably would not, it makes sure that money will be there when needed for retirement. Saying "be responsible and save" will not work, and libertarian economics ideas generally do not work well. 

If we DO get rid of it, then it would need to be replaced by a more robust benefits program, including for disability, plus requirements on all businesses to pay enough minimum wages so people don't require any other government support, or else all business will dry up. As robots take over, who will buy the products they make?

If we don't get rid of SS, then we still also need other programs.

I think people are more likely to support a guaranteed income program or other income support that is paid for by all who can afford it and available to everyone. Such a program could be progressive in taxation, I imagine.