The Child Labor Thread

[Larry]

"Please, sir.  May I have some more?"  

[China]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

"Please, sir.  May I have some more?"  

 

Maybe someone should send them copies of Oliver Twist.

 

But they probably can't read.

[tshile]

Feels weird to see rolling back of child labor laws and solving Medicare/ssa problems by upping the age you can claim it

 

ill never understand people that support either (or both cause those people exist too)

[Larry]

Actually, I'm all right with raising the SS age.  

 

Although I'll point out, the words "Raising SS age" can have multiple meanings.  

 

To illustrate, I'm going to create an imaginary person who's "full SS" is 1,000/mo.  And I'm going to pretend that "retirement age" is 67, and raise it to 70.  

 

What I'm in favor of is:  

 

Age (Current plan)    65    66    67    68    69    70
Age (My proposal)     68    69    70    71    72    73
Income               800   900   1000  1100  1200  1300

 

In my proposal, the "payouts" don't change.  it's just 3 years later when you get them.  The system becomes more solvent, due to people paying into the system for 3 more years, and collecting (the same) benefits for 3 years less.  And yes, people can make decisions based on their own circumstances.  They can still retire early (although the definition of "early" has moved), and collect less.  And people have the option of working till 73, and collecting more.  

 

But from what I've seen, when Republicans talk about "raising the retirement age", what they're talking about is:

 

Age                    65    66   67    68    69    70
Income (Current plan) 800   900  1000  1100  1200  1300
Income (GOP plan)     500   600   700   800   900  1000

 

Yes, under the GOP plan, the guy who retires at 70 gets the same amount as the guy who retired at 67 used to get.  But they haven't "raised the ages".  They've "cut the payouts, but you can compensate for the cut by working till 70".  What used to be "full income, but you can get more by working later" has become "that's the most you can get".  

 

They're not proposing "raising the retirement age by 3 years".  They're proposing "cutting benefits by 30%".  

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

What does federal law say about that?

 

Is there one, or is this passing because there isn't one undercutting a federal rule that doesn't exist?

[Larry]

Let me guess.  The "justification" behind this is that the government should not interfere in labor negotiations between a child, and an employer who has the power to buy the state legislature?  You know, the "free market"?  

 

[Renegade7]

Some of these Redneckisan states run by Yall-Qaeda are seriously starting to think and act like they they own little third world country.

 

The way to remind them they aren't is at the Federal level.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[philibusters]

On 4/19/2024 at 6:44 AM, Larry said:

Actually, I'm all right with raising the SS age.  

 

Although I'll point out, the words "Raising SS age" can have multiple meanings.  

 

To illustrate, I'm going to create an imaginary person who's "full SS" is 1,000/mo.  And I'm going to pretend that "retirement age" is 67, and raise it to 70.  

 

What I'm in favor of is:  

 

Age (Current plan)    65    66    67    68    69    70
Age (My proposal)     68    69    70    71    72    73
Income               800   900   1000  1100  1200  1300

 

In my proposal, the "payouts" don't change.  it's just 3 years later when you get them.  The system becomes more solvent, due to people paying into the system for 3 more years, and collecting (the same) benefits for 3 years less.  And yes, people can make decisions based on their own circumstances.  They can still retire early (although the definition of "early" has moved), and collect less.  And people have the option of working till 73, and collecting more.  

 

But from what I've seen, when Republicans talk about "raising the retirement age", what they're talking about is:

 

Age                    65    66   67    68    69    70
Income (Current plan) 800   900  1000  1100  1200  1300
Income (GOP plan)     500   600   700   800   900  1000

 

Yes, under the GOP plan, the guy who retires at 70 gets the same amount as the guy who retired at 67 used to get.  But they haven't "raised the ages".  They've "cut the payouts, but you can compensate for the cut by working till 70".  What used to be "full income, but you can get more by working later" has become "that's the most you can get".  

 

They're not proposing "raising the retirement age by 3 years".  They're proposing "cutting benefits by 30%".  

 

The problem with that is it is in some ways regressive.  Blue collar workers are forced to retire early as their bodies break down.  If you have a white collar job working into your late 60's is very doable.  If you have worked construction since you were 18, your body is going to break down before your late 60's.

 

I think a better solution is just removing or upping the cap on income that is subject to the Social Security Tax, as currently income over $170,000 is not subject to the social security tax (this would be the biggest change in saving social security), or means testing Social Security so that if you receive more than a certain amount of income in a year (say half a million) you are ineligible for social security (this would not have as big of an effect as applying the social security tax to income over $170,000).