Rubio's Bill to Modernize Social Security

[TomSea]

Rubio's Bill to Modernize Social Security
Cortney O'Brien

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) are introducing legislation that will allow new parents to use their Social Security benefits for parental leave in exchange for delaying their retirement by three to six months. The Economic Security for New Parents Act, the lawmakers hope, will especially help middle and working class Americans deal with the "income shock" of having a child.

Just over one in 10 workers receives paid family leave from their employers, Rubio and Wager point out. Why not let parents dip into Social Security during one of the most "vulnerable" times in their lives? Previous paid leave proposals have fallen short, they argue.

    We need a national policy to increase access to paid parental leave for new parents. Previous proposals, emulating the approach of some European countries, have tried to accomplish this by increasing taxes or mandates on businesses. Those options would cut the pay and employment of the very people we want to help, and make families of all shapes and sizes subsidize one parenting model over all others.

Read more at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/08/06/rubios-bill-to-modernize-social-security-n2506496

So, perhaps with the NRO article, a more fair analysis of the Rubio bill. Everything can't be easy such as sponsoring a bill criticizing the use of human shields by terrorists.

[truth_seeker]

! No longer available

[Cyber Liberty]

So once again, Mr. "Number One in a Gang of Eight" proves he hasn't got a clue.   

[Victoria33]

So once again, Mr. "Number One in a Gang of Eight" proves he hasn't got a clue.   

@Cyber Liberty

Would be an administrative nightmare.  What could possibly go wrong?
If a couple of going to have a child, maybe they could think about what they want to do when it is born - like put some money in reserve for that time period.  Can't believe Rubio can't think better than this.  The govn. is going to help you when you have a child?  What about having a dental appointment and they do something that requires you to be off work - if babies give you money, then I want money for dental problem off work.  If the foot doctor does something with your foot, and you can't work for a while, want government to pay you then.

Let's just get to the chase - no one works and the govn. gives you money.  They just print it and hand it out, everyone gets the same amount.  Can you say Communism?

[Applewood]

Oh.
Hell.
No.

[Sanguine]

Essentially the same story:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,327894.msg1764755.html#msg1764755

[Cyber Liberty]

Essentially the same story:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,327894.msg1764755.html#msg1764755

A mighty poor post you are responding to in that thread.

[Sanguine]

A mighty poor post you are responding to in that thread.

Huh?

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Let's just get to the chase - no one works and the govn. gives you money.  They just print it and hand it out, everyone gets the same amount.  Can you say Communism?

Here's an insanely unfair proposition:  I have a brother who hasn't held down a job for more than three weeks for the past 25-30 years.  He got SSDI because of that, and now receives the larges SS check possible.  I worked continuously for >45 years, and will receive the same size check in 4 years.  Less if the greedy bastards succeed in making SS "means-tested," because I saved to finance my retirement.  (I'm retiring early, BTW.  September 21 is my last day working.)

[Cyber Liberty]

Huh?

Not your post...the one you responded to.  I was shocked to read it coming from a long-time Briefer.

[Sanguine]

Not your post...the one you responded to.  I was shocked to read it coming from a long-time Briefer.

Ah.  And,  agreed.

[Applewood]

"Income shock"

If you are stupid enough to start having children before you can figure out whether you can afford them, then too bad.   It's your problem.  You figure it out.

I can see how this would turn out.  Sure, the parent (s) will appear to be paying for these kids by sacrificing part of their SS.  But then it will turn out that there won't be enough money from their own SS, so the contributions made by people like me who didn't have any children or those who saved to afford their kids will once again be stolen to pay for the stupid, lazy and irresponsible who didn't plan for their own kids. 

This scheme doesn't modernize SS.  Modernization would be privatizing SS or maybe giving workers their contributions in a lump sum when they retire and telling them to invest it .  No, this is just going to be another for of welfare. 

[Sanguine]

"Income shock"

If you are stupid enough to start having children before you can figure out whether you can afford them, then too bad.   It's your problem.  You figure it out.

I can see how this would turn out.  Sure, the parent (s) will appear to be paying for these kids by sacrificing part of their SS.  But then it will turn out that there won't be enough money from their own SS, so the contributions made by people like me who didn't have any children or those who saved to afford their kids will once again be stolen to pay for the stupid, lazy and irresponsible who didn't plan for their own kids. 

This scheme doesn't modernize SS.  Modernization would be privatizing SS or maybe giving workers their contributions in a lump sum when they retire and telling them to invest it .  No, this is just going to be another for of welfare.

Yep.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I can see how this would turn out.  Sure, the parent (s) will appear to be paying for these kids by sacrificing part of their SS.  But then it will turn out that there won't be enough money from their own SS, so the contributions made by people like me who didn't have any children or those who saved to afford their kids will once again be stolen to pay for the stupid, lazy and irresponsible who didn't plan for their own kids.

Exactly.  There is no way to know when someone is 25 years old how much Social Security they will be entitled to when older.  For all we know, the parent in question may never work another day in their life, so there will be no "future" Social Security payments from which to draw.  Inevitably, that money will have to come either from 1) what other people put into Social Security, or 2) additional taxes.

This is an even worse idea than a business mandate, because at least in that case, employers can reduce wages so as to keep their labor costs constant.  Borrowing aginst money you haven't even earned yet -- as Rubio's plan essentially does -- is fiscal insanity.

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.  There is no way to know when someone is 25 years old how much Social Security they will be entitled to when older.  For all we know, the parent in question may never work another day in their life, so there will be no "future" Social Security payments from which to draw.  Inevitably, that money will have to come either from 1) what other people put into Social Security, or 2) additional taxes.

This is an even worse idea than a business mandate, because at least in that case, employers can reduce wages so as to keep their labor costs constant.  Borrowing aginst money you haven't even earned yet -- as Rubio's plan essentially does -- is fiscal insanity.

Which is why I fully expect both Parties to go forward with this full-steam.