More or better? Rethinking Social Security for the 21st century
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 | 12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Social Security reform is back in the news, but this time it's about more than just fixing the program's finances. Both the left and the right are proposing structural changes to Social Security to better address the retirement needs of the 21st century.
Many progressives support increasing Social Security benefits to address a perceived decline in retirement income security in America. Some conservatives, likewise, have proposed structural reforms designed to better target Social Security's resources and improve incentives to work and save.
At this event, experts from the New America Foundation and AEI will assess reform proposals and discuss the best way forward.
Details
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
12:30 - 2:00 p.m.
Lunch will be served.
AEI, Twelfth Floor
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Agenda
12:00 PM
Registration and Lunch
12:30 PM
Presenters:
Andrew G. Biggs, AEI
Michael Lind, New America Foundation
Moderator:
Sita Slavov, AEI
1:15 PM
Question-and-Answer Session
1:45 PM
Closing Remarks
2:00 PM
Adjournment
Register
RSVP to attend this event.
To watch live online, click here on January 15 at 12:30 PM ET. Registration is not required.
Posts
1 comment:
In the more than 40 years I have studied and modeled Social Security I have found no experts. They either try to use linear math projecting expenses or fail to understand the nuances of legislation ie reduction in COLA or the fact that the 1977 OASI formula is a mathematical divergent serires.
Experts need to understand that you cannot get something from nothing and that there is no free lunch. Taking from someone else to give to another is not reform, it is theft.
"When a person says “We Earned it!” what exactly do they mean?
To me, this phrase is a righteous euphemism for making the more truthful statement: "We were snookered by this Social Security Ponzi scheme, and now we are going to snooker the next generation!"
If Social Security benefits have been "earned" who is obligated to pay benefits to those who "earned" them? Workers? On a regressive tax basis? Why? Why perpetuate a fraud upon the innocent? Who is responsible for bearing the burden of a fraud? The person defrauded? Or an innocent or unborn child?
I do applaud your recognition that the benefits that have been "earned" should be means/affluence tested. But this seems to go against the declared euphemism that benefits have been "earned". And why pay such means/affluence tested Social Security benefits with regressive taxes? What is the rationale for this? Why rob the poor and middle class to pay a need-based benefit to poor and less-well off elderly persons?
The only conclusion I can draw is that many people see it as a positive step for our nation to become a two-class society, with a perpetual underclass unable to use their resources to gain class mobility and a perpetual overclass in control of our nation's productive capital. So much for the American dream..."
Post a Comment