There wouldn't be a need for Social Security if we paid workers well.

[Dark]

If people received enough money from their work to pay for their retirement instead of having to work for Wal-Mart for the rest of their lives, then we could phase out Social security.

And it's not like the companies making billions upon billions of dollars each year couldn't afford to pay their workers more. They just want to keep more money for the people at the top.

So I have an idea to remedy the entire situation:

No person affiliated with any enterprise may make, from that company, a salary that is more than 20 times the lowest paid employee's salary. End. Simple, isn't it?

This seems to work for both capitalists and liberals to me. Liberals get good worker's pay. But, there is no limit as to how much the CEO's and others can make, appeasing capitalists who think people should not be punished for production. They just can't make a profit by squashing the pay of the basic employees.

Whaddya think?

Note: I favor universal health care, so I didn't include health care.

[MoonRiver]

1. Folks can't be trusted to save. Besides, stuff happens in people's lives

that often tempt them to withdraw savings. I think SS is great because it forces savings we can use in old age, as long as the next generation participates. This system should stay exactly the same. Why fix it if it works?
:shrug:

[Dark]

3. I think Social Security is a good idea. But it is nothing more than

a supplement. What is going to help people to survive retirement is a good job and adequate healthcare.

[MoonRiver]

7. I agree, but supplements are good for one's health.

Tax deferred retirement accounts are the solution for those who desire/need/can afford additional retirement savings. Those already exist in abundance. Why should we change anything?

[Elidor]

5. Agreed

An aquaintance who died recently had been making $45,000 a year, but had no savings. His wife is now living hand-to-mouth.

[MoonRiver]

10. Is she getting his SS death benefits?

[Elidor]

18. Yes, but that's all she's getting for now.

[sandnsea]

2. Disability, survivor's benefits

Social security is not a retirement plan.

[Colorado Blue]

4. Unfortunately that scenario only works if people are fully

employed - have no breaks in employment which is highly unlikely. It only works if one works outside the home and/or for a corporation. What about freelancers, part-time workers, artists, musicians, so forth?

What about MOTHERS?

Also - what about people who become disabled? Millions of us are alive because of Social Security disability. It is a GODSEND.

We must have Social Security - period! Without it we are all at risk of catastrophe regardless of what we are paid. There are simply NO guarantees, no matter how well one is paid or how hard one works, that disasters won't strike.

Beyond that, I agree with your idea of putting caps on bosses' salaries. Hooray.

[Dark]

12. I'm not saying we should toss it out the window.

At least not now. I'm saying gradually make it so that people get the money they need from their jobs, not the government. Help them help themselves.

Encourage and assist them with finances.

But we wouldn't need the current incarnation of it if the vast majority of healthy individuals were working at jobs where they could save up for retirement.

[Vincardog]

6. Good plan how about adding that no Government benefit or contracts for

companies that lay off American Workers to shift jobs offshore?

[Dark]

13. I think that they should have to pay for the universal health care

if they ship jobs overseas. Also, it would be illegal to ship jobs to countries that abuse human rights.

[marcologico]

8. Yes on paying living wages, but everybody still needs insurance,

especially workers. CEOs can usually fend for themselves but don't forget those suicides in 1929. Anybody can get wiped out.

[noamnety]

9. There will always be a need for it

Social Security covers more than old people who worked all their lives. It's the safety net for people who are disabled, widows/widowers, and children of deceased parents. Living wages don't do much to help the unemployed, or people who invest in stocks that tank.

It's an insurance program not an investment program. Like auto insurance and home owner's insurance, it's a safety net, not designed to be a primary source of retirement income, but rather designed to keep you from starving to death if you find yourself in dire circumstances.

[IndianaGreen]

11. People could never retire under your plan

because the only way they could have health insurance would be to continue to work until they dropped dead.

[Dark]

14. Read the bottom. UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

[MoonRiver]

15. Imo, we should have both SS and universal health care.

People get sick, and people get old, often at the same time. Why should we penalize folks for events they cannot control?

[Dark]

16. I agree too. We, right now, need both.

I simply believe that SS is thought of too often as being retirement income. It's not.

It's a supplement, just like vitamins supplements, it is only an add on and won't do any good without something more substantial there.

[MoonRiver]

17. So true. We need both.

[qwghlmian]

19. What do you mean by "we"?

Do you pay workers? If you do - do you pay them well? If you don't - why did you use "we"?