Fundamentally, humans are evolved not because of our ability to wrestle a rhino. We are evolved because of our brains, and the things which strengthen our minds should be valued more than the things which strengthen our fists. It takes a lot of effort to wrestle someone, but just a twitch to pull a trigger.
We'll talk about who survives the apocalypse when it actually comes.
A little taste of political logic (with a side dose of insanity and humor to make things interesting.) My life will occassionally be brought in with some journalism.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Social Security Solution
We all hear about Social Security having problems and running out. We never hear of a solution. I will warn you this is going to be a long post, this is a big problem. This post, however, if followed in full by everyone in the country, would solve our social security woes (unless proven otherwise).
Where to start, this is big. We know its a problem and we know that nobody has a solution which works when keeping Social Security in existance. The problem that has brought the house of cards down: more old people than young people.
This can't be solved by killing old people, well, it could, but that just isn't nice. It is worse than nice: it is age genocide. We don't do that in this nation.
We could just print money to pay for it but that would lead (among our current spending) to hyperinflation.
So what should we do? I say we end the program.
Please stop running around like the end of the world is approaching. Hear my case before screaming about my evil heartless existence.
How do we end it? We could just stop paying now and witness our elderly bankrupt families who care enough to try and care for their elders, and see the elderly without caring families homeless in our streets and killing themselves to give mercy to their families wallets.
That isn't what I meant by end the program. We need to phase out the program in a way that new entries do not expect to receive the benefits but those who were promised those benefits receive them.
Hear that? Those who worked thinking they were going to get it will get it, those just starting won't get it.
Solution: an alternative.
Fact of life is you do not (if your lucky) work until the day you die. So having a place, an account, to put your money for retirement (still by government mandate) is the best option. An account where you pay the Social Security tax (possibly even Medicare, but that isn't the program I studied for this) and the cash builds up without having it pay for someone else, the government, or a bank's bad loans. An account which can only be increased until you retire and can only be touched by you.
Why this approach of a mandated approach to retirement? People just don't, en masse, plan for the future. Think of this: when you were 18 did you think of how you were going to pay the bills when you retired? People really don't think about saving. This account would allow that, but there is a catch.
All those people who were promised their retirement will still get it. How will we pay for it? Well, everyone will still pay the Social Security tax. Yes, a double dose of taxes for people. It is a very painful thing I know, but hey, such a problem requires some unsavory solutions. You have a better solution, let me know.
This will allow the funds to be raised to pay for social security without (long term) leading to the unending bankruptcy of the nation.
Four paragraphs and things sound pretty sound, but wait, there is more. The fund can not stop raising (as in collecting, not increasing) the Social Security double tax (double in the sense that it goes to two places) until the last person receiving benefits has, well, stopped receiving those benefits. This means having a shift of Social Security to just handling retirement accounts, and allowing and creating other programs for disabilities and other things.
When a person with the account dies, the funds should go to declared beneficiaries. Will you get all the funds when a person dies? No, the government will never let go of that inheritance tax. So basically, when a person dies, half of the funds in their account will go to the heir, and half to the government. This way the government still gets it's cut to pay for managing the accounts.
The agency could be called the Retirement Account Agency, and a requirement of a yearly audit would ensure proper handling of the finances.
Now the rate someone withdraws their retirement should be left up to them. I would personally recommend people prepare to live for 100 years. Odds are you probably won't live 100 years, but planning that far ahead will give you some breathing room to give a helpful boost to your beneficiaries for funeral costs and other purposes.
You got a better idea? Let me hear about it. Think my plan won't work, let me know why.
Where to start, this is big. We know its a problem and we know that nobody has a solution which works when keeping Social Security in existance. The problem that has brought the house of cards down: more old people than young people.
This can't be solved by killing old people, well, it could, but that just isn't nice. It is worse than nice: it is age genocide. We don't do that in this nation.
We could just print money to pay for it but that would lead (among our current spending) to hyperinflation.
So what should we do? I say we end the program.
Please stop running around like the end of the world is approaching. Hear my case before screaming about my evil heartless existence.
How do we end it? We could just stop paying now and witness our elderly bankrupt families who care enough to try and care for their elders, and see the elderly without caring families homeless in our streets and killing themselves to give mercy to their families wallets.
That isn't what I meant by end the program. We need to phase out the program in a way that new entries do not expect to receive the benefits but those who were promised those benefits receive them.
Hear that? Those who worked thinking they were going to get it will get it, those just starting won't get it.
Solution: an alternative.
Fact of life is you do not (if your lucky) work until the day you die. So having a place, an account, to put your money for retirement (still by government mandate) is the best option. An account where you pay the Social Security tax (possibly even Medicare, but that isn't the program I studied for this) and the cash builds up without having it pay for someone else, the government, or a bank's bad loans. An account which can only be increased until you retire and can only be touched by you.
Why this approach of a mandated approach to retirement? People just don't, en masse, plan for the future. Think of this: when you were 18 did you think of how you were going to pay the bills when you retired? People really don't think about saving. This account would allow that, but there is a catch.
All those people who were promised their retirement will still get it. How will we pay for it? Well, everyone will still pay the Social Security tax. Yes, a double dose of taxes for people. It is a very painful thing I know, but hey, such a problem requires some unsavory solutions. You have a better solution, let me know.
This will allow the funds to be raised to pay for social security without (long term) leading to the unending bankruptcy of the nation.
Four paragraphs and things sound pretty sound, but wait, there is more. The fund can not stop raising (as in collecting, not increasing) the Social Security double tax (double in the sense that it goes to two places) until the last person receiving benefits has, well, stopped receiving those benefits. This means having a shift of Social Security to just handling retirement accounts, and allowing and creating other programs for disabilities and other things.
When a person with the account dies, the funds should go to declared beneficiaries. Will you get all the funds when a person dies? No, the government will never let go of that inheritance tax. So basically, when a person dies, half of the funds in their account will go to the heir, and half to the government. This way the government still gets it's cut to pay for managing the accounts.
The agency could be called the Retirement Account Agency, and a requirement of a yearly audit would ensure proper handling of the finances.
Now the rate someone withdraws their retirement should be left up to them. I would personally recommend people prepare to live for 100 years. Odds are you probably won't live 100 years, but planning that far ahead will give you some breathing room to give a helpful boost to your beneficiaries for funeral costs and other purposes.
You got a better idea? Let me hear about it. Think my plan won't work, let me know why.
Bruce Poliquin Interview
I had an interview today with Bruce Poliquin, a Republican candidate for governor. The conference call was very successful, many questions were asked and the responses were to the point and (for my taste anyway) very well spoken. We covered many topics. The first being education in which several points were made. First, he knows the schools work best without the state running them. He has the experience in managing and common sense, very important quality there to be able to balance the struggle of state and school board sovereignty. However, he did not give a specific answer to how state funds would be given if the state was giving no input.
The position of the governor on social issues being provided by the Constitution was avoided, but he did say that social issues such as same sex marriage should only be approved by the voters. He as governor does not feel like such an issue is best resolved for 1.3 million people just by his approval. He is very aware of the process that makes Maine unique in terms of voter petitions and supports that being used on such problems.
Reduced taxes in an all encompassing approach to making the code simpler is one of his primary goals. The need to expand business and give it, at least on the state level, the room it needs to grow with a combination of fewer and more streamlined regulations. The environment for business, Bruce says, needs to be made more attractive so we get the businesses we need to keep our kids here, provide jobs we need, and expand our economy.
However, politics is rarely without controversy. So I asked my first question on campaign controversy ever, which was a moment where Bruce became very passionate.
On the issue of a recent debacle in Portland, he said the accusations are baseless. He was invited like all other candidates, and his campaign accepted instantly. It was going to be a fundraiser event for the Portland City Republicans, not for the Poliquin Campaign. His campaign offered to pay for the campaign fee of $750 for their campaign to be represented, thus saving the Portland Republicans money so the event would not cost the group any funds. The other campaigns it seems made a completely false accusation in order to, by my own understanding of the situation, avoid paying the fee. He continues to be willing to fulfill that commitment at any time. Poliquin's campaign, however, supports giving voters as many opportunities to know the candidates and will take part in as many debates as possible.
To conclude: Bruce says the accusations were baseless and there will never be a conflict of interest with his campaign.
[The event in Portland was boycotted by the other campaigns on allegations of the Poliquin Campaign having a staff member benefiting from the fundraiser and, as the report I read stated, making this into a campaign fundraiser instead of the Portland City Committee fundraiser. Personally, I trust Bruce since no state filings for campaign ethics have occurred and his statements were either Emmy worthy performances or pure honesty.]
As I remember more of our half-hour conversation, I'll let you know. One thing you can be certain of: Bruce Poliquin is one of the most energetic people in politics I have ever seen. He has constant positivity and faith in this state and its people. Some candidates focus on other campaigns, but his is entirely focused on his message and policies.
There is another side of the story here. The outreach of the Poliquin campaign is one of the best I've ever seen. This opportunity to talk with Bruce was given to me by their invitation. I didn't even have to ask for it. My three emails each to the other candidates still go unanswered. However I've gotten two opportunities to speak with Bruce already and both times it was their outreach which gave me that opportunity.
I've written before about how a campaign needs a good outreach, and the Poliquin campaign has one which continues to have my support.
The position of the governor on social issues being provided by the Constitution was avoided, but he did say that social issues such as same sex marriage should only be approved by the voters. He as governor does not feel like such an issue is best resolved for 1.3 million people just by his approval. He is very aware of the process that makes Maine unique in terms of voter petitions and supports that being used on such problems.
Reduced taxes in an all encompassing approach to making the code simpler is one of his primary goals. The need to expand business and give it, at least on the state level, the room it needs to grow with a combination of fewer and more streamlined regulations. The environment for business, Bruce says, needs to be made more attractive so we get the businesses we need to keep our kids here, provide jobs we need, and expand our economy.
However, politics is rarely without controversy. So I asked my first question on campaign controversy ever, which was a moment where Bruce became very passionate.
On the issue of a recent debacle in Portland, he said the accusations are baseless. He was invited like all other candidates, and his campaign accepted instantly. It was going to be a fundraiser event for the Portland City Republicans, not for the Poliquin Campaign. His campaign offered to pay for the campaign fee of $750 for their campaign to be represented, thus saving the Portland Republicans money so the event would not cost the group any funds. The other campaigns it seems made a completely false accusation in order to, by my own understanding of the situation, avoid paying the fee. He continues to be willing to fulfill that commitment at any time. Poliquin's campaign, however, supports giving voters as many opportunities to know the candidates and will take part in as many debates as possible.
To conclude: Bruce says the accusations were baseless and there will never be a conflict of interest with his campaign.
[The event in Portland was boycotted by the other campaigns on allegations of the Poliquin Campaign having a staff member benefiting from the fundraiser and, as the report I read stated, making this into a campaign fundraiser instead of the Portland City Committee fundraiser. Personally, I trust Bruce since no state filings for campaign ethics have occurred and his statements were either Emmy worthy performances or pure honesty.]
As I remember more of our half-hour conversation, I'll let you know. One thing you can be certain of: Bruce Poliquin is one of the most energetic people in politics I have ever seen. He has constant positivity and faith in this state and its people. Some candidates focus on other campaigns, but his is entirely focused on his message and policies.
There is another side of the story here. The outreach of the Poliquin campaign is one of the best I've ever seen. This opportunity to talk with Bruce was given to me by their invitation. I didn't even have to ask for it. My three emails each to the other candidates still go unanswered. However I've gotten two opportunities to speak with Bruce already and both times it was their outreach which gave me that opportunity.
I've written before about how a campaign needs a good outreach, and the Poliquin campaign has one which continues to have my support.