This is tricky. UBI would be the fairest way to do this. You may be skeptical of UBI but Social Security is tied to wages because you pay through your wages. For example, I do modest work as an independent contractor for a nonprofit and pay a decent chunk of that money to social security (both the employee’s and the employer’s contribution.) This amounts to 12.4%, and I also pay out 2.9% for Medicaid. So with $10,000 in income , I am paying more than $1500/yr into the system. The only other alternative I see is allowing people to buy into the system without salary and receiving a commensurate benefit in the future. Or perhaps this social security benefit could be something like the student loan forgiveness programs, where the government subsidizes qualified service with a stipend to cover a social security contribution. Our representatives seem very tied to paid work as a public good for all (including mothers in the fourth trimester apparently) so it is hard to envision public support. I think perhaps allowing people to buy social security credits (with a similar rationale as Spousal IRAs) might be the most palatable.
Katie's arguments are persuasive, and important. If volunteers are doing the equivalent of paid work for non profits and aren't getting the salaries that enable Social Security credits, either they should become paid employees (for whom Social Security payments made) or they should get Social Security credit anyway even without the payments being made.
I definitely support the first, and I'd be willing to support the latter. The latter would be easiest, I think. Proof of volunteer work would enable the person to file for Social Security credits each year.
I'd also support caregivers getting Social Security credits too.
I think a UBI-like approach is very feasible here - but not if it were called UBI. It would have to be branded as a "retire with dignity" campaign, or "dignity for all". And it could/should/would be paired with a solution to make social security solvent (raise contributions of high income earners, while keeping it flat for everyone else).
I also think, sadly, it's probably not possible to *actually* get a fair & flat solution, but just to raise the floor closer to the ceiling. But that would be quite the win!
you wrote: You can make more doing trivial, even terrible things for rich people than necessary things for poor people, because rich people have more money to throw at a problem.
I really HATE this statement. it's not pertinent to the argument and potentially casts all large companies as evil. there are many assumptions made about how much money different professions or jobs make. is that really the question here, leah? if that's the case, then a baseball player who makes $35 million is automatically in opposition to a school teacher who makes $45k. while i refuse to buy tickets to sporting events because of the outrageous salaries paid to professional athletes, it's not their fault they make so much. i'd take advantage of those salaries too if i could get them. so would teachers or nurses if they could. that said, the lack of value our society places on the work of raising children and caring for our other family members is just short of criminal. in missouri, we finally have a medicaid program that will pay family members for caring for family members who qualify for medicaid. that doesn't solve the SS shortfall, but it is at least an acknowledgement that there is value in keeping people home rather than in care facilities and that we'd mostly rather be cared for by family than by strangers. i'm 73 and my mother was the only woman who worked full time outside of the home in my neighborhood except at a family owned business. she actually often made more than dad who was in retail (as an RN in management). but, she never participated in any school events where moms normally did. my DIL who works a very high power job and has 3 small kids is much more involved but has far more help at home. times have changed as DIL is far better paid than mom ever was with equivalent degrees. SS will follow along with them with husbands who have good earning power. but, they are in a fortunate minority.
This is tricky. UBI would be the fairest way to do this. You may be skeptical of UBI but Social Security is tied to wages because you pay through your wages. For example, I do modest work as an independent contractor for a nonprofit and pay a decent chunk of that money to social security (both the employee’s and the employer’s contribution.) This amounts to 12.4%, and I also pay out 2.9% for Medicaid. So with $10,000 in income , I am paying more than $1500/yr into the system. The only other alternative I see is allowing people to buy into the system without salary and receiving a commensurate benefit in the future. Or perhaps this social security benefit could be something like the student loan forgiveness programs, where the government subsidizes qualified service with a stipend to cover a social security contribution. Our representatives seem very tied to paid work as a public good for all (including mothers in the fourth trimester apparently) so it is hard to envision public support. I think perhaps allowing people to buy social security credits (with a similar rationale as Spousal IRAs) might be the most palatable.
Katie's arguments are persuasive, and important. If volunteers are doing the equivalent of paid work for non profits and aren't getting the salaries that enable Social Security credits, either they should become paid employees (for whom Social Security payments made) or they should get Social Security credit anyway even without the payments being made.
I definitely support the first, and I'd be willing to support the latter. The latter would be easiest, I think. Proof of volunteer work would enable the person to file for Social Security credits each year.
I'd also support caregivers getting Social Security credits too.
I think a UBI-like approach is very feasible here - but not if it were called UBI. It would have to be branded as a "retire with dignity" campaign, or "dignity for all". And it could/should/would be paired with a solution to make social security solvent (raise contributions of high income earners, while keeping it flat for everyone else).
I also think, sadly, it's probably not possible to *actually* get a fair & flat solution, but just to raise the floor closer to the ceiling. But that would be quite the win!
you wrote: You can make more doing trivial, even terrible things for rich people than necessary things for poor people, because rich people have more money to throw at a problem.
I really HATE this statement. it's not pertinent to the argument and potentially casts all large companies as evil. there are many assumptions made about how much money different professions or jobs make. is that really the question here, leah? if that's the case, then a baseball player who makes $35 million is automatically in opposition to a school teacher who makes $45k. while i refuse to buy tickets to sporting events because of the outrageous salaries paid to professional athletes, it's not their fault they make so much. i'd take advantage of those salaries too if i could get them. so would teachers or nurses if they could. that said, the lack of value our society places on the work of raising children and caring for our other family members is just short of criminal. in missouri, we finally have a medicaid program that will pay family members for caring for family members who qualify for medicaid. that doesn't solve the SS shortfall, but it is at least an acknowledgement that there is value in keeping people home rather than in care facilities and that we'd mostly rather be cared for by family than by strangers. i'm 73 and my mother was the only woman who worked full time outside of the home in my neighborhood except at a family owned business. she actually often made more than dad who was in retail (as an RN in management). but, she never participated in any school events where moms normally did. my DIL who works a very high power job and has 3 small kids is much more involved but has far more help at home. times have changed as DIL is far better paid than mom ever was with equivalent degrees. SS will follow along with them with husbands who have good earning power. but, they are in a fortunate minority.