This doesn't make sense to me. The US federal tax system is progressive. The more unequal society is, the more money government makes.
Until taxes are adjusted to reflect the fact that the top 1% control a greater share of the cash pie then they did 30 years ago, structural deficits will be a recurring problem. Simple as that.
My main interest in retirement security is just making sure people save some money. I don't like the way Social Security is presently set up because it funnels more money into government coffers, and I would prefer some of that money funneled into capital goods in the private sector. I don't think people should be given free reign to invest in whatever the hell they want: options should be restricted. I also don't think it's necessary to take the entirety of the employee contribution and make people personally responsible for investing it all.
Bush's main problem with his SS proposal was that he had no way of filling up the shortfall to current beneficiaries once he diverted new funds into private accounts. Maybe thrawn's proposal would address that, and i'm much more open to that idea than to the ideas that just raise the eligibility age. Of course, since stocks have been overall a pretty bad investment over the last 15 years compared to treasury bonds.. plus the fact that treasury bonds can never default (exempting the stupidity of a debt ceiling debacle - platinum coin ftw) while stocks can go bust at any time. Are you seriously arguing that progressives don't want an economic stimulus? You realize that it's your party that has spent the last 3 years blocking any meaningful stimulus or jobs programs, including the entirety of the American Jobs Act? You also realize that 'Obamacare' made savings/cuts to the Medicare program you so revile, and spent a good part of it giving subsidies to - wait for it - young people? But yeah, the government hasn't given a !@#$ about the public interest for about 31 years, so it'll take a real reckoning for that to change.
It can still be a rather paternalistic program of conservative investments with some aggressive growth investments and a guaranteed minimum. I wouldn't mind if my social security tax rose by 2% and my employer side also increased by 2% if I was allowed to invest it myself...and well, I kept my 401k, too, because it's basically free 401k money
Bush's plan was incomplete, but, IMO, still a step in the right direction.
Now, my question is, why are you concerned about parties instead of government as a single entity? I was talking about government as a single entity. If you want to talk about parties specifically, the Democrats still pushed hard for universal health coverage, which is a goal I straight-up do not agree with compared to other goals (economic stimulus, public infrastructure, education reform, etc). The House version of the bill also relied more heavily on "rich people" taxes.
So, just making the government entirely Democratic isn't exactly going to fix the problem of "not great" policy choices.
But facts are facts are facts! There are no "interpretations"! Can Kain or GV or someone explain to me - if you allow individuals to have greater control over their SS account, does it hurt the integrity of the system as a whole? I'm thinking about healthcare and the importance of everyone having insurance in order to curb emergency costs, that kind of thing.
Depends on what you mean by "greater" control. If you give people free reign over their money, yeah, it can be an absolute disaster. there is going to be some minimum income that's guaranteed, which reduces risk, which means some people are going to dump all their money into risky gambles.'
You can offer a restricted menu of conservative choices, though. Most companies do not offer the "full range" of investment options on their 401ks, for instance, you can only select from certain plans. Some are extremely aggressive and risky, but you don't have to offer those as part of SS reform.
The other problem would be "market timing," which can start eroding savings REALLY fast. Lose half of your money on stocks and decide to sell, well, you just lost half your money because of a temporary aberration. You could restrict people from selling like that, BUT that would probably cause a political outrage.
There's also a macroeconomic problem of chasing returns if you want to use individual stocks. Which can be bad, basically like the entire stock market consisting of lemmings...
I mean, $200 billion over 10 years, add in returns, and you start getting some HUGE pension funds.
This is very appealing to conservatives, though, as they create an "ownership" society. Essentially everyone becomes a mini-capitalist! Yay!
More broadly speaking, I think Republicans should re-think their strategy a little bit. Bush was on to something with his "ownership society," and the party has abandoned that in the wake of the financial crisis and recession. But it delivered our ONLY popular vote victory since the friggin' 80s. The Republican Party is the party of people who have their !@#$ together, NOT the party of tax cuts. Structuring increased taxes on the rich to put more people into homes and stabilizing their lives is good for the party and good for the country.
Or we can keep letting the country fall apart and let the Democrats continue to blow a giant hole in the country as they pretend to be conservative (but absolutely suck at it).