We Need More Kids

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

That could be solved by allowing a lot more young immigrants into the country if they want to join what was once a called a nation of immigrants. These people pay into SS, but rarely receive it. Plus, very few Americans want to care for older adults. Most of the aides and LPNs in the nursing home where my mother spent her last two years were immigrants. The RNs were mostly American citizens who were born in the US. RNs aren't the ones who help older adults with the ADLs.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a limit on the income paid into SS. People who are extremely wealthy don't need larger SS benefits, but they should pay in more than they currently do. Women who want to have more babies certainly should be able to but there are many ways to solve things like SS besides having more babies. There are currently a huge number of jobs that can't be filled because Americans don't want to do that type of work.

Bring in those who will do the jobs in return for a chance to become citizens. Of course that's not going to happen under the current xenophobic administration but we're fucked if this continues, not just because of SS, but for all the jobs that need to be filled.

I talked with my husband who has a background in public finance about this issue: raising income that could be taxed for SS while limiting benefits received because I thought exactly what you suggested. What he told me was that removing the cap on taxable income but maintaining the cap on benefits received would go completely against the purpose and design of SS. It was designed so that everyone contributed and everyone received in proportion to what they contributed. This is why there is a cap on income taxed for SS: Rich people don’t need money from SS. It could cause more resentment and a collapse of support for and of this very important benefit if we changed that balance.

I don’t like it either but I see his point. GOP is already trying to destroy SS.

I already knew all of that, but that doesn't mean the billionaires should receive huge amounts of SS just because they pay in more. I know this won't happen, at least not in my lifetime, but there is no reason why the ultra wealthy need so much money.

Another option is to permit those who don't need SS to donate it back. I think Warren Buffet used to talk about how insane it was that he paid a lower percentage of taxes compared to his secretary. There are some decent wealthy people who would probably agree to something like that. Plus, the better members of the ultra wealthy could try to shame those who aren't willing to donate their SS. There are solutions to make the system more fair. Lower income people get pittance when it comes to SS. Why is that fair if they've worked all of their lives, paid into SS at the same percentage of everyone else, but were never able to make a decent salary?

You mean financial need? Of course really wealthy people don’t need SS. But SS is supposed to be for everyone, not just those who actually need it. And everyone pays in if they earned wages or were married to a wage earner. People who didn’t earn much money get more in SS than they contributed. Likely they did not earn enough to save for retirement. SS was conceived of as an anti-poverty program to keep older people from literally starving to death.

I think the cap on wage earnings that are subjected to SS taxes is about $80K but I could be wrong. I think it should be raised but not eliminated.

 

[Elixir]

I think the cap on wage earnings that are subjected to SS taxes is about $80K but I could be wrong. I think it should be raised but not eliminated.

For 2025, the cap on wage earnings subject to Social Security taxes is $176,100.
Why should it be capped? The idea isn’t to provide financial security to poor elders, it’s to secure our social structure. I don’t see how removing that arbitrary cap would in any way reduce or threaten the security of our society, but I can see a lot of ways it would ensure or enhance it.

 

[Toni]

I think the cap on wage earnings that are subjected to SS taxes is about $80K but I could be wrong. I think it should be raised but not eliminated.

For 2025, the cap on wage earnings subject to Social Security taxes is $176,100.
Why should it be capped? The idea isn’t to provide financial security to poor elders, it’s to secure our social structure. I don’t see how removing that arbitrary cap would in any way reduce or threaten the security of our society, but I can see a lot of ways it would ensure or enhance it.

Ah, I was really really out of date re: cap. Really out of date. Thanks for the correction.

I think the cap should be raised. I’m not certain it should be removed as it could motivate some to structure their income to avoid income coming from wages, which is what is subject to SS cases. That already happens.

I also think that the wealthy—corporations and individuals—should be taxed at a higher rate than they are via income taxes.

 

[southernhybrid]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

That could be solved by allowing a lot more young immigrants into the country if they want to join what was once a called a nation of immigrants. These people pay into SS, but rarely receive it. Plus, very few Americans want to care for older adults. Most of the aides and LPNs in the nursing home where my mother spent her last two years were immigrants. The RNs were mostly American citizens who were born in the US. RNs aren't the ones who help older adults with the ADLs.

Additionally, there shouldn't be a limit on the income paid into SS. People who are extremely wealthy don't need larger SS benefits, but they should pay in more than they currently do. Women who want to have more babies certainly should be able to but there are many ways to solve things like SS besides having more babies. There are currently a huge number of jobs that can't be filled because Americans don't want to do that type of work.

Bring in those who will do the jobs in return for a chance to become citizens. Of course that's not going to happen under the current xenophobic administration but we're fucked if this continues, not just because of SS, but for all the jobs that need to be filled.

I talked with my husband who has a background in public finance about this issue: raising income that could be taxed for SS while limiting benefits received because I thought exactly what you suggested. What he told me was that removing the cap on taxable income but maintaining the cap on benefits received would go completely against the purpose and design of SS. It was designed so that everyone contributed and everyone received in proportion to what they contributed. This is why there is a cap on income taxed for SS: Rich people don’t need money from SS. It could cause more resentment and a collapse of support for and of this very important benefit if we changed that balance.

I don’t like it either but I see his point. GOP is already trying to destroy SS.

I already knew all of that, but that doesn't mean the billionaires should receive huge amounts of SS just because they pay in more. I know this won't happen, at least not in my lifetime, but there is no reason why the ultra wealthy need so much money.

Another option is to permit those who don't need SS to donate it back. I think Warren Buffet used to talk about how insane it was that he paid a lower percentage of taxes compared to his secretary. There are some decent wealthy people who would probably agree to something like that. Plus, the better members of the ultra wealthy could try to shame those who aren't willing to donate their SS. There are solutions to make the system more fair. Lower income people get pittance when it comes to SS. Why is that fair if they've worked all of their lives, paid into SS at the same percentage of everyone else, but were never able to make a decent salary?

You mean financial need? Of course really wealthy people don’t need SS. But SS is supposed to be for everyone, not just those who actually need it. And everyone pays in if they earned wages or were married to a wage earner. People who didn’t earn much money get more in SS than they contributed. Likely they did not earn enough to save for retirement. SS was conceived of as an anti-poverty program to keep older people from literally starving to death.

I think the cap on wage earnings that are subjected to SS taxes is about $80K but I could be wrong. I think it should be raised but not eliminated.

SS was also developed during the time when corporations still gave pensions to their employees based on how many years they worked. It was meant to supplement pensions, but these days, it's primarily government employees who get pensions.

So now, SS is what most older adults rely on for their primary source of income. If they don't have savings or haven't inherited a good amount of money they are fucked. I'm sure you know that, but again, the system can be changed. It doesn't matter how it was created, it can be changed.

I do know one couple who are extremely frugal despite never making a high salary. Still they had 2 kids and both worked for all of their adult life. Their parents were poor so they never inherited money. They saved, invested and now have no debt, no mortgage and based on what my friend has told me, a good amount of savings.

In fact, the husband is 75 and has chosen to continue working, not so much for the income but because he is one of those people who needs to stay very active to be happy. He's a mechanic who works in a manufacturing plant. But, very few people are able or willing to do that and very few people have the discipline to live such a frugal lifestyle. Actually, the wife is more frugal compared to the husband. She drives a Toyota that is over 30 years old and refuses to buy a newer car, despite her husband urging her to do that. He has two cars and a motorcycle.

Since pensions have ended, I'm sure you've noticed that many older adults, some who are in their 80s are working in retail jobs among other things. I've mentioned before that I worked with an 85 year old woman who was a cook in the long term care facility where I worked until I retired. I was also friendly with a woman who worked in a grocery store stocking shelves, but she had to eventually retire due to a work related injury. She had to be at least 70 when she still worked. We ran into her and her husband one day in another store and she told us what happened and why she retired. It's fine to work that long if you want, but people shouldn't have to work at that age due to not being able to pay for housing or food. We need to give more help to poor older adults and make the ultra wealthy pay more taxes, including SS.

 

[unapologetic]

Was mispelling intelligence deliberate or ironic?

'Do not attribute to stupidity, that which is accomplished by inability.'

 

[jonatha]

It was designed so that everyone contributed and everyone received in proportion to what they contributed.

It is surely not entirely proportional. Higher contributors receive proportionally less than lower ones. If not, the lower ones wouldn't get much of anything.

Google tells me that the minimum benefit for someone with 40 credits (i..e, someone who worked long enough to qualify for full benefits) is about $1100/month and the maximum is a bit over $5100/month, or 4.6x. The latter corresponds to someone earning at least $176K/year, so if things were proportional the former would not kick in until just under $38K. Full time at minimum wage is less than half that ($15080).

 

[Jarhyn]

Perpetual growth in consumption of any specific resource is impossible without recycling (but again, that's not something we are attempting, so who cares?)

Even then, there's an asymptotic limit to that growth, and pushing towards it is just plain fucking stupid, but the wealthy of today think that it's gonna be someone else's problem, and they're right, mostly because they're just fucking old.

 

[Toni]

It was designed so that everyone contributed and everyone received in proportion to what they contributed.

It is surely not entirely proportional. Higher contributors receive proportionally less than lower ones. If not, the lower ones wouldn't get much of anything.

Google tells me that the minimum benefit for someone with 40 credits (i..e, someone who worked long enough to qualify for full benefits) is about $1100/month and the maximum is a bit over $5100/month, or 4.6x. The latter corresponds to someone earning at least $176K/year, so if things were proportional the former would not kick in until just under $38K. Full time at minimum wage is less than half that ($15080).

It was set up with amortization that considered that higher wage earners would have access to other retirement income. It also takes into consideration surviving spouses, divorced spouses and surviving minor children. But life expectancy has increased along with inflation. Keep in mind that few women earned wages when SS was first implemented. It was expected that they would require benefits as surviving spouse.

Something that people might not be aware of is that you can start collecting SS while you are still working. Also only earned wages are subject to SS taxes. Investment income is not subject to SS taxes.

 

[bilby]

Less useless posts on IIDB?

FEWER.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Something that people might not be aware of is that you can start collecting SS while you are still working. Also only earned wages are subject to SS taxes. Investment income is not subject to SS taxes.

Speaking of the untapped tax reserve. FICA on investment income over $25,000 a year would likely help the coffers a bit.

 

[bilby]

Our 'economy' represents our activity in life, our need for housing, food, transport, mining, logging, fishing, farming, making money, etc, etc.

Yes, and economic growth is growth in GDP, measured in dollars.

And as the planet and its resources, arable land, etc, is finite, perpetual growth is not possible.

That follows ONLY if you cannot increase GDP without increasing resource use. Can you demonstrate that this is true?

(Hint: You cannot, because it's not true).

Buying and downloading new software for your computer is one example of an economic activity which increases GDP, but which requires no additional resource use to achieve. High speed share trading is another example. Thinking is an economic activity (if you can find someone to pay you to do it). Most jobs, and all really high-paid jobs, in the developed world are mostly thinking.

A person needs the exact same resources to live, whether he thinks or not.

Given that there are ways to increase GDP with no increase in resource use, your claim "perpetual growth is not possible" is demonstrably untrue of economic growth.

It doesn't matter that it is true of population growth or of resource use growth. Those things can only be relevant if they are always and unavoidably required for GDP growth, and at least since the Industrial Revolution, they have not been.

Economic growth has massively outstripped both population and resource use growth for at least two centuries now, and the gap between them is rapidly widening as we move to an information economy.

Your belief that economic activity requires the use of natural resources is simply false.

 

[steve_bank]

Reporting from China and Japan shows the same problem with birth rate. In China and Japan young people are choosing career over kids.

Not enough young workers to support older generations.

China has tried offering cash rewards and promoting single women to have kids, with little effect.

Russia as well.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Reporting from China and Japan shows the same problem with birth rate. In China and Japan young people are choosing career over kids.

Not enough young workers to support older generations.

China has tried offering cash rewards and promoting single women to have kids, with little effect.

Russia as well.

As did Finland. I guess being the happiest country on earth is a double edged sword. As did a number of other countries to no avail.
Seems the only countries with high birth rates are ones where there's nothing better to do than to get drunk and fuck and running to the drug store is literally just that and a days long affair.

 

[steve_bank]

I love kids, as long as they are somebody else's....

Adding to the issue is the cultural shift promoting wome;'s full participation in the work force.

 

[Toni]

I love kids, as long as they are somebody else's....

Adding to the issue is the cultural shift promoting wome;'s full participation in the work force.

And men failing to pick up the slack.

And video games/screens in general.

 

[RVonse]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I'll break the news to my seven year old granddaughter because right now she's thinking astronaut.

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

I agree completely with everything you say except the bold. Parents have to be given both authority with responsibility or they will not become parents. No reasonable person wants responsibility without having authority especially raising their own progeny.

 

[unapologetic]

Your belief that economic activity requires the use of natural resources is simply false.

I believe an economic system using NO natural resources is not possable.

China has tried offering cash rewards and promoting single women to have kids, with little effect.

Ha. Remember when they were limiting births?

 

[pood]

Your belief that economic activity requires the use of natural resources is simply false.

I believe an economic system using NO natural resources is not possable.

The issue is whether an increasing GDP, normally the gauge of economic growth, always requires an increasing population and increasing use of resources. It does not always require that.

 

[Elixir]

Not enough young workers to support older generations.

Ho hum. Soon enough the few young ones who do exist will be old, and there will be no kids to support them, either.
Obviously the human race will die out in another half century. On the bright side though, the few who survive to the end will be able to drive all those unsold Teslas around, and there won’t be any traffic to spoil the fun.
The other possibility is that things will carry on as before, only with ever-shortening human life expectancies due to earlier onset of inability to compete for resources.
When the ethic of “hey, they’re old, so fuck ‘em” fully takes hold, the age of retirement will creep ever closer to the age of puberty, at which point all those trends will reverse.

 

[Toni]

But if we want people to have more babies, maybe it’s the men who need to change.

I think I missed the part where it was explained why we need more babies.

To keep Social Security solvent. And someone is going to have to change out bedpans.

I'll break the news to my seven year old granddaughter because right now she's thinking astronaut.

The reason I'm most familiar with is not men blaming women or women blaming men or women blaming other women. No. The reason I'm most familiar with is people not wanting to "bring children into this world". Anyone else familiar with that statement? So, I blame the government and largely the US government as they are best suited to create a more peaceful world. Beyond that, government can create conditions conducive to family life. How do we do that you ask? Well, create conditions where a family only needs and wants a single bread winner. Push a narrative (and rightfully so) of the importance of raising children. That raising children is one of the most rewarding things a person can do. And along these same lines, convince our supreme court that a parents' right to raise their children as they see fit is the stupidest statements they've ever made. How two idiots figuring out how to fuck makes them omniscient and omnipotent for such an important task is beyond me.

I agree completely with everything you say except the bold. Parents have to be given both authority with responsibility or they will not become parents. No reasonable person wants responsibility without having authority especially raising their own progeny.

I agree that parents should have/must have authority to raise their kids as they see fit—within certain limits. These limits would include no child abuse, and providing mandatory decent food, housing, appropriate clothing, medical attention ( including vaccines) and school. And society should provide necessary support to ensure that basic needs are being met. Child abuse would require an intervention.

In theory, home schooling is fine but in reality, it can be anything except educational. And can serve as a work around to avoid scrutiny into child neglect and child abuse.