Thought experiment about entitlements

[LLStarks]

Imagine for a second that we have a person, perhaps a young person has only worked jobs off the books, doesn't owe taxes, and hasn't paid into the system.

If it were such that individuals like him were not guaranteed entitlements given current projections, would it be fair to tell that person to plan their life with the assumption of receiving no entitlements?

Oh wait, this isn't a thought experiment... This is a GOP wet dream.

[applegrove]

1. If the democrats do not have a hand in SS reform, like means testing and such, the GOP will

privatize the whole dam thing when they get a super majority in the next 30 years. They want as many Americans as possible in the stock market. And by getting unions to try and destroy corporations they can whittle down the Democratic big tent. Don't let them get away with this.

[Enthusiast]

3. Could you explain this please?

"And by getting unions to try and destroy corporations they can whittle down the Democratic big tent."

Who is getting the unions to TRY to destroy corporations?

[applegrove]

6. Have you not noticed the attack on unions by the GOP? In WI? And some have

come out and said corporations should be destroyed. Well almost all the middle class, those with savings, are in the stock market. Saying you want to destroy corporations, rather than just reeling them in and properly regulating them, alienates those middle class people who vote dem but have savings in the stock market.

[Enthusiast]

7. Organized labor

does NOT want to destroy corporations!

That is utterly ridiculous!

The RIGHT WING might SAY unions want to destroy corporations but ANY Democrat knows this for a filthy lie.

Union workers depend on corporations for their livelihood. Unions expect corporations to be good corporate citizens -an entirely reasonable expectation.

[applegrove]

8. Well I was getting alot of my worries from pro union people on the DU. If you say

Unions are not saying it I believe you. Still those pro people who are saying it need to be careful.

[Enthusiast]

9. Pro union people need to be careful?

Unionized workplaces are now at 7%.

Has the American worker prospered since being de-unionized? Has the reduction of unions brought new manufacturing to the nation? I think you are a well meaning Republican/Teabagger. Ask yourself. What has this HUGE reduction of organized labor done for the nation? It's kind of a thought exercise.

[applegrove]

10. I'm for unions. I don't want to see talk of corporations destroyed because

I don't want our Dem big tent destroyed and Repukes in power. All the GOP need is a small % of dems and they win the White House. I want corporations regulated properly as I am not happy with what they have been doing as of late. I think all those middle class people, many union people included, with savingvs in the stock market (corporations) would agree. Not to destroy corporations but to reregulate them. So that Democrats win elections and vote together as a huge block. So that unions can grow back and don't lose more power. So that corporations no longer can use unlimited funds to give repuke candidates $$$. Huge numbers of Americans got in touch with their inner union member because of the WI demonstrations. Let us keep that goodwill and use it to reign in corporations not destroy corporations and 401Ks.

[Enthusiast]

12. Again, I've never heard of unions wanting to destroy corporations.

This is simply inaccurate. But it sure is something we hear from Fox News/Limbaugh.

[applegrove]

13. Can we say that 100% of people on the DU are pro-union? Yes. I have come across numerous posters

here who want corporations destroyed. If it doesn't worry you fine. It worries me and I want to get the warning out there. We do nothing good if we destroy our big tent. Enough people with actual union membership vote for the GOP as it is. I would not want to see a trend develop because people, all of them pro-union, see so much red when they think of corporations that they want them destroyed.

[Enthusiast]

14. I believe almost all of us would prefer

that corporations lose their status as human beings and that they are reasonably regulated. That would hardly equate with "destroying" them.

Of course if one believes right wing propaganda, every act of consumer protection is an arrow into the heart of the poor blameless corporations.

My point is -they have enough 'support", why add to it on the DU?

[applegrove]

15. I don't have a problem with people on the DU, Union supporters, who just want

to see corporations properly regulated. I have a problem with the members of the DU, Union supporters, who want to see corporations wiped off the map and destroyed.

I think we are talking at cross purposes so we should just en this discussion.

[fivepennies]

16. Do they really want the corporations destroyed

or do they just want them de-monopolized?

Too much power in too few hands makes for bad employers, with or without a union, and we can clearly see who's winning that war. The way its going, we'll be back to the 1800s and fighting those same old battles all over again, but with a lot less gumption than those guys had.

[applegrove]

18. I agree there is such a thing as too big, too powerful, too evil. And these things

should be fixed. A corporation is not a person any more than a union is. I just worry that those on the far left, great union supporters that they are, will get on line and talk about doing away with corporations entirely... scarring union and non-union Democrats alike who have 401ks.

[fivepennies]

19. I have a friend who is almost exactly as you portrayed

other than she calls herself independent but tends to get her mind all bent out of shape by right wing talk radio's anti union bias. So today I printed off a thread from earlier today listing Labor's historical fights for worker's rights in this country and added some of the benefits and perks she, as a non union member, enjoys because of those fights. Don't know if it deflated the bubble in her head, but it got her cerebral juices flowing a little in the opposite direction.

There are probably tens of millions of others out there who think just like my friend who have no access to alternate view points, thankfully I don't have to talk with all that many of them. Its exhausting.

Still, under the current circumstances it won't be fixed/can't be fixed. What fixing it will take is a lot more than talk or words on a piece of paper.

[applegrove]

20. It starts with talk, words and pieces of paper. That is how the GOP have indoctrinated

millions of people like your friend. That is how it will have to be undone.

[LaydeeBug]

5. BULLSHIT!! this is a false choice as repigs will try to privatize it anyway. nt

[alc]

2. nobody is guaranteed entitlements. from ssa.gov

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right

Any young person should plan their life with the expectation of receiving no entitlements. If you project our spending (even after the recent "cuts") & SS & medicare benefits out 2-3 decades, the entire GDP won't cover us. While we have lots of focus on protecting current SS & medicare, and spending us out of the recession, someone needs to be looking long term. The money just won't be there no matter what Krugman says. Now may not be the time to change things, but baseline budgeting and increasing health care costs will literally take up 100% of everyone's salary and we'll still need to borrow at some point.

GDP is about $15 trillion now. Our deficits are $1.5 trillion. In 10 years we will have added the equivalent of our current GDP to the debt in addition to the current $14 trillion debt. The budget grows 6-8%/year if we do nothing. GDP isn't growing anywhere near that. We can bitch all we want that someone isn't fighting for SS, and someone else is willing to put medicare on the table, and the tea party wants drastic cuts. But we need some huge changes very soon or we're screwed. Military is the biggest opportunity. Changes in the tax code need to be on the table. But even that is not enough (even taxing millionaires 60%+ isn't enough because the problem really is that big).

Assuming the SS trust fund works until 2037, what happens in 2038? Current projects are that the trust is solvent until 2037, but I think the bonds it has need to be paid back from the general budget until then so the date things get bad is earlier.

[quaker bill]

4. Long haul solutions are quite easy

we just have to choose to make them soon. It is obvious, you need to collect taxes from those who have the money. The wealth distribution curve needs to be somewhat flattened. If the rich still get rich, but a little slower, and everyone else has a ration more as a result, the economy will improve. It is not rocket science. An improved economy fixes most of the remaining revenue problem.

The other thing that has to happen is a bit more radical. You have to structure the tax code so that building businesses and employing people here is the easiest and fastest way for people to get rich, because then they will start doing it.

[MH1]

11. It's not a thought experiment, it's REALITY -you have to pay into the system to get SS and Medicare.

at least that's the way it used to be. You have to have a certain number of years of full time work paying into these programs or you are not eligible for retirement benefits. Part time work counts too, but is prorated by some formula.

I don't know the detailed number now, but it used to be 5 years.

I can't say for other programs, but I know this is how they used to be, because my parents did not receive it for that very reason.

[fivepennies]

17. Whenever I hear the word entitlements

I think of the idle rich who feel fully entitled to keep everything they have and believe that they are entitled to everything we still have, too.

[Zenlitened]

21. That's not how it works, at all. You have to pay into the system to collect.

If someone is working "off the books," then they are NOT building up credit for future benefits.

From the SSA website:

How you become eligible for Social Security

As you work and pay taxes, you earn Social Security “credits.” In 2011, you earn one credit for each $1,120 in earnings—up to a maximum of four credits per year. (The amount of money needed to earn one credit usually goes up every year.)

Most people need 40 credits (10 years of work) to qualify for benefits. Younger people need fewer credits to be eligible for disability benefits or for family members to be eligible for survivors benefits when the worker dies.

Link:
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10024.html