"Fix Social Security by Hiking Retirement Age"

Today's quote:

"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." – Thomas B. Reed

I will continue the "economic history of the U.S." thing shortly... But this article really screamed out for commentary.

As I have been saying for years, the government will absolutely, positively default on Social Security by raising the age to receive benefits. We have arrived in the Land of the Philistines.

Social Security collections were not considered a "tax", but a system of forced savings via a Government sponsored insurance program with forced participation that got out of hand (in fact there is no "Social Security", its proper name is the "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program"). People of a certain age (45-59) paid the absolute most in and will get the least out relative to their contributions. Yes Social Security is underwater. Not because people of a certain age (like me) have not been overpaying into it, but because Washington pols bought the good will of the elderly by over benefiting them for the past 30 years all the while increasing the extraction of the people born after 1955. Social Security collections have, in fact, peaked ("Peak Social Security" has a nice ring to it). The government can increase the percentage take all it wants, this will only further drain M1 at a time of deflation... which only exacerbate's the situation.

Now Washington wants your sympathy for stealing from you via robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Of course Congressman Boehner is correct. We will have to move the retirement age to 70 (and then 73) or cut monthly benefits drastically (I like this better, it has more truth to it). Take a good whiff of this Bull SH*T. Social Security was a HORRIBLE idea. It was and is nothing more than a Ponzi/Madoff scheme that, by mathematical necessity, MUST collapse of its own weight at some point... but before doing so it so addicts people to false promises and exaggerated claims that they begin to believe that it is some kind of Right.

Here's the clincher in the article:

There are those who say older workers won't be employable past age 65.

"But this is all, as an economist says, 'endogenous,'" said Mitchell. "That is, if you know that your work life will last till age 70, you'll be likely to continue to invest in your skills later in life, which will help make you more employable. And the fact that jobs today are much less physically demanding than they were 30 years ago helps make a longer work life feasible."

Then again, if you really don't want to keep working till 70, Mitchell said you could save so as to "buy your own early retirement."

Is Professor Mitchell really suggesting that people take responsibility for themselves and save for their own retirement? How Libertarian of her and I could NOT agree more... but funny, coming from a Tenured professor.

Oh, well... another do-gooder social program out to make Life fair is in its last throws before it bite's the big one.

In its death throws this is likely to cause some unbelievable angst. How are the over 60 folks that spent $400,000 on cigarettes (with interest) over a lifetime going to work? Are they going to carry the O2 tank with them? And the over 60 morbidly obese? With their fallen arches, diabetes, and bad backs I am concerned that they might be that reliable. We addicted them and we took away their incentive to FEAR old age and provide for it.

Why is it that someone who worked 20 years gets the same benefit as someone who worked 40? The system was so poorly conceived for the real world that it is hard to get your head around.

But there is some good news. We have too many houses and too many cars and too many EVERYTHING.... we will figure it out... but not if we continue to insist that $20,000 or $30,000 per year in property taxes is supportable by senior citizens (amongst other things).