Do you think it is the federal govt's job to keep these people from dying homeless in the street?
Read my post - I said society has decided that.
Are you saying that neither you nor any of your relatives would lift a finger to help the relatives you have that need help, but sit back and wait for the federal govt to do it? I think it would be better done at the personal or local level. Most things would be.
My relatives are not your relatives are not their relatives. There are many non-supportive families out there. Some actually don't have any surviving close relatives, nor contact with their non-close relatives.
The local level would be fine and dandy except that it's much easier for the 'local level' to become overwhelmed if there's a localized problem. There's a reason why insurance companies distribute their risk around the world through re-insurance schemes.
I am also curious what the SSA defines as an assett. I thought the only assetts they have are IOU's.
Fed.gov IOUs at that. They're not even diversified into things like hospital bonds.
I don't think SS can easily be removed immediately. There would be a lot people objecting who paid into the system expect to get return (like my parents). But I think it is a screwy system that should be eliminated eventually if not right now. Younger people need to be given a means to move off of it.
Thus my proposal, which I didn't complete. Cap the income at .5% below inflation, so the benefit it provides is always decreasing, if slowly. People would have to depend upon it less. Keep increasing the age requirement, so again, fewer people ever get it, for shorter periods of time. I figure something like 2 months older per year. We need to add around 35 years to completely eliminate it, but that would take 210. But barring extreme medical development it'd be irrelevant due to the inflation cap and median life expectancy taking 'most' out of the pool long before that.
Once you're over the 'hump', start diverting the money into TSP type investment bodies for the individuals. Eventually you can decrease the percentages, though I'd still charge for the disability payment.
It shouldn't be part of SS. The reason I think it should be paid by local govts is because if the locals are paying taxes to the local govt to cover it, they might have more interest in helping the local auditors weed out the freeloaders. Also, people who don't need it might actually consider they are taking money from their neighbors instead of some faceless FedGov. Also, local govts have more limited taxation and are more likely to control costs.
...I come to much different conclusions than you.
1. It now being a 'local money' problem, you exasperate the problem that has been seen with homeless - they'd rather pay for the bus ticket to somewhere, anywhere, outside their 'domain' to get rid of the expensive types. Shuttling helps nobody.
2. Poor areas would be isolated from rich areas, and unable to pay for the services necessary
3. In many cases 'local governments' have MORE taxation powers than the fed.gov. They're pretty much restricted to income tax. Local governments have income tax, sales tax, property tax, regulatory fees, etc...
4. 'Consider they are taking money from their neighbors', yeah right...
Literally not possible. Boomers are an enormous cohort that had very few children. Economic policies have ensured that record numbers of that much smaller cohort are un or under employed. So fewer and fewer people making less and less money are going to be trying to prop up a vast quantity of boomers. They can't even fulfill their current obligations, let alone do that AND put more aside for a separate retirement system.
Correct. Which is why I proposed a system that would take around a person's life to go away. 'Everybody' alive now who makes it to their median life expectancy will receive at least some of it. Those currently under 18 won't be able to depend upon it as their primary means of retirement income, like is currently the case, but they'll get some. Might have to wait until they're 85, but it'll be there. While we're at it we might have to increase the disability portion.