ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax


I agree...SS will eventually be "fixed" by doing some number of items, such as tying it to whatever (inflation/wages/family size), raising age requirements, means-testing, etc. But, then 10-20 years down the line, you're going to do the same thing...try to make the program work by "fixing" it.
SS should be ended in a phased fashion. Then, people can use the additional funds as they see fit...if there are some who don't have enough funds in their old age, then there are private charities. And, with additional funds in private hands, then charities would be funded better to handle the additional recipients. And, all of this would be done with less bureaucratic overhead, more local involvement, and less coercion.
Dear Mr. Henderson, start with yourself and send back each and every SS payment you'll receive.
I think the gecko is on to something. Send me back all my contributions to date - not even asking for interest - stop the withholding, and I will agree never to take a payment and never complain about SS again.
Can I have a larger social security check since I support open borders?
I for one would rather have Social Security taxes taken out of my paycheck than not have Social Security. The U.S.'s demographics allow the program to be workable with relatively modest changes to the retirement age and a small decrease in benefits. It is politically difficult but will not be impossible. They are upping the age and lowering the benefits in France and Greece right now, and Americans will accept it as well.
The alternative is to make investments (take on risk) and bet that in the many years leading up to and through retirement, that those investments will not turn out to be worthless or worth far less, such that retirement is ruined and one dies in relative poverty. By the way, the DOW has been flat or negative for 10 years, which is the length of a short retirement. I am happy to count as an asset in retirement the mechanism of social security, which attaches the current ability of Americans to be engaged in productive pursuits to retirement income. This is in many ways a more secure investment than the risk that investments made over 40 years in industries that could disappear overnight will not in fact disappear or become severly devalued. Look at ss taxes as another way of diversifying, and it will not be as painful.
But if the point is to use incentives to make the system "sustainable" then a larger pension should go to those that produce more children and keep the worker to retiree ration more tenable.