by Outcast_Searcher » Wed 01 Feb 2017, 17:51:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shaved Monkey', '
')Australia stopped paying SS security to Kiwis for 10 years but we can go to NZ and get SS and citizenship straight up.
If I go and retire in NZ I can also get my pension nearly 3 years earlier and my private super and assets arent counted so my pension doesnt reduce even if Im filthy rich.
(Red font above mine, for emphasis).
This is one place where I think the (government) social insurance systems have it wrong.
IMO, it should be social INSURANCE for a reason.
If you "make it" and retire with "enough" income (by some hopefully reasonable and objective standard set by society), then congratulations, you made it, and you don't need Social Security (to use the US as an example).
Everyone would still get Medicare at 65, due to the horrendous cost of medical care (and that in the US, you basically can't get ANY medical insurance from age 65, except for add-ons to medicare). Obviously it could be phased out, or better yet, this wouldn't happen until someone had enough income that there was no reasonable doubt that they don't "need" SS to get by (presuming they keep their medicare).
Now, I know a lot of people don't like this idea, but it truly would be consistent with the idea of social INSURANCE. It also would help fund SS without raising the rates as a burden to the working class.
And note: I'm talking what I think is right here, which is the opposite of what would be best for me personally. Any "reasonable" income level I think they'd choose would make me ineligible for SS, and that's fine with me if that standard were applied consistently.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.