Make it what it was originally intended to be -- a system to protect people from running out of money if they lived well passed their life expectancy.
Obviously this suggests raising retirement ages, but that is't likely to change the behaviors of people nearing retirement -- their decision on when to retire, and when to start collecting SS.
What I have noticed is a staggering number of people who elect not to wait until Age 70. Some have had dual income households their whole lives in semi-professional jobs, and yet say that they can't wait that long. Some even take it at 62. I asked a wealthy friend of mine yesterday, aged 66, why he was taking it. He had been on it for years...because "he could" take it. Most think it makes sense because they also think they will get more than 8% if they invest the money. That is another problem. It should involve high risk to beat the "return" of an SS deferment. This doesn't happen when we corrupt capitalism and hand out easy money through the central banks.
I think a first step towards fixing the problem would be to raise the incentive to delay SS, and raise the maximum age to 73 or even higher so that more people would die before collecting benefits. Obviously 7-8% isn't high enough when people who have money to invest are taking social security instead of using their own money. The benefit should be cut for those in their 60s, then dramatically raised for every year you wait past age 70. You should be able to draw down deferred tax accounts, pay taxes on that money (which would help the government), and either spend it or invest it in your Roth. All of these steps increase revenue and/or stimulate the economy while taking some burden off of SS payments. As it is, some people take SS so they can pass more of their own money to their heirs. SS was not intended for that. It was not intended to be a disability system either, where there is massive fraud and abuse. That sort of thing should be administered at the state and local level, where it can be more closely monitored for corruption.
SS should be an insurance policy if you live too long, not a pension benefit. I see a catastrophe brewing as people on SS are going to be unable to make ends meet. This was driven by, once again, the unintended consequences of government programs -- bureaucrats being unable or unwilling to ascertain human behaviors. State institutions will have to deal with hoards of destitute people, because they think SS is a pension instead of what it was meant to be: Social "Security," an insurance system to protect against living too long and making yourself dependent on OTHERS! This is as critical as a life insurance policy when you die too young with dependents on YOU!
Obviously this suggests raising retirement ages, but that is't likely to change the behaviors of people nearing retirement -- their decision on when to retire, and when to start collecting SS.
What I have noticed is a staggering number of people who elect not to wait until Age 70. Some have had dual income households their whole lives in semi-professional jobs, and yet say that they can't wait that long. Some even take it at 62. I asked a wealthy friend of mine yesterday, aged 66, why he was taking it. He had been on it for years...because "he could" take it. Most think it makes sense because they also think they will get more than 8% if they invest the money. That is another problem. It should involve high risk to beat the "return" of an SS deferment. This doesn't happen when we corrupt capitalism and hand out easy money through the central banks.
I think a first step towards fixing the problem would be to raise the incentive to delay SS, and raise the maximum age to 73 or even higher so that more people would die before collecting benefits. Obviously 7-8% isn't high enough when people who have money to invest are taking social security instead of using their own money. The benefit should be cut for those in their 60s, then dramatically raised for every year you wait past age 70. You should be able to draw down deferred tax accounts, pay taxes on that money (which would help the government), and either spend it or invest it in your Roth. All of these steps increase revenue and/or stimulate the economy while taking some burden off of SS payments. As it is, some people take SS so they can pass more of their own money to their heirs. SS was not intended for that. It was not intended to be a disability system either, where there is massive fraud and abuse. That sort of thing should be administered at the state and local level, where it can be more closely monitored for corruption.
SS should be an insurance policy if you live too long, not a pension benefit. I see a catastrophe brewing as people on SS are going to be unable to make ends meet. This was driven by, once again, the unintended consequences of government programs -- bureaucrats being unable or unwilling to ascertain human behaviors. State institutions will have to deal with hoards of destitute people, because they think SS is a pension instead of what it was meant to be: Social "Security," an insurance system to protect against living too long and making yourself dependent on OTHERS! This is as critical as a life insurance policy when you die too young with dependents on YOU!
