If the Townsend plan was adopted today, every American over 60

[magical thyme]

would receive $2,629.50/month in social security.

Francis Towsend suggested $150/month to every American over 60 back in 1933.
http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/frustrated-blogger-made-expanding-social-security-respectable-idea-67226/

In today's dollars, that would be $2,629.50/month. That's what we should be demanding.
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

[RC]

1. That's $31,554 a year.

Or $16.43 an hour.

Sounds good to me.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. K&R One of many possible solutions, all we lack is will. n/t

[bvar22]

3. Are you nuts?

We would have to reduce our Military Spending,
or raise taxes on the RICH to do something like THAT!

DURec!

[awoke_in_2003]

4. I know, right???

Damn socialists :

[socialist_n_TN]

19. HEY! I resemble that remark!........

[awoke_in_2003]

27. I noticed

[HereSince1628]

5. & mortgage our great grandchildren's futures for what? OLD HIPPIES!

They've finally got the hippies where with a bit of neglect they can dispose of their lazy, pot smoking, commie asses.

Now isn't the time to waste money on them.

[Scuba]

12. Um ...

[HereSince1628]

22. Ya, I thought the sarcasm smilie unecessary

[CreekDog]

15. Actually, if that was the minimum people were making...

we'd create more income taxpayers that were formerly non income taxpayers.

we'd reduce the dependency upon programs for the needy.

if we reduced inequality, then the taxes that pay to run our nation and provide for our people and needs would not need to come as heavily from the wealthy as they do now.

it's funny the wealthy see reduction of inequality as a threat, when they are already positioned to benefit from income gains the rest of us make (we'll likely be spending it at/on their business interests anyway...)

and our ability to contribute more to the tax base will be improved, relative to theirs.

what they are threatened by is actually what is likely the best thing for them.

ironic.

[bvar22]

17. ..and that is not "theory",

it is HISTORY.

The New Deal and Great Society programs once championed by the Democratic Party built the largest, Wealthiest, and Most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen.

LBJ's War on Poverty was a HUGE success.
America was prosperous,
and people STILL got fantastically RICH.

I want my America back too!


[font color=firebrick size=4][center]"When we all do better, we ALL do better!"
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[CreekDog]

18. Yes it is and not just here.

In Europe.

They have a broader tax base, more equality and more services, for everyone.

It works! All of us having a vested interest in each other's needs works. It makes us all wealthier and makes the services that everyone shares of higher quality than when they are just provided for the poor.

[gtar100]

6. We just aren't that nice to each other. (nt)

[Voice for Peace]

7. I could live very comfortably on that.

[boomersense]

8. That would cost some people a lot of money that

they already earned via payroll taxes. My wife and I earn 3823 in SS and are both near 70 and have worked non-stop since we were 17. We are not Sweden and never will be.

[magical thyme]

10. Since the maximum payout if you retire at 70 is $3350, I trust you mean that your

wife's and your combined SS is $3823.

The last time I looked, $2,600 x 2 = $5,200. You would get a larger benefit, not a smaller one.

You are fortunate to have been able to work nonstop. Not everybody is able to; jobs disappear, entire industries collapse, some people have health issues, even healthy people can end up hit by a car and be forced out of work to heal.

Many people would choose to retire if they could. That would open up job opportunities for younger people, who need to have a 'stake in the game' and a future as well.

You are right that we are not Sweden. I believe Sweden is looking to pay *all* adults a basic wage, not just seniors.

Even conservative Richard Nixon considered paying out all adults a base income of $25,000. Just because something isn't politically viable doesn't mean its not a good thing to do.

[boomersense]

11. Yes, you are right. My mistake. For some reason I thought it said per family. However, having

said that, today's work ethic is quite a bit different among the older than the younger. So much so that at times it cannot be believed. Even at her age, my wife gets several unsolicited job offers a month. I do too but not as many as her. We have already decided to leave the country next year and maybe open up a clinic in St. Lucia--unless it is too big a hassle. Thank you for the correction to my post.

[magical thyme]

13. if you're opening a clinic, it sounds like you are in healthcare

That would explain your ability to remain continuously employed, even at your ages.

It is unfortunately not the case with many other fields of work that need to be done, but can be done more cheaply somewhere else or by somebody else.

I entered healthcare in my mid-50s after my prior industry and career crashed. It is very difficult to start over and be at the bottom rung in my age range. I am generally not welcome by co-workers. I was fortunate to get hired part time/per diem right out of school; about half of my class could not even get interviews anywhere in the country in a field that supposedly has 100% employment with 14% projected growth. Hopefully ACA will help. In the meantime, I now work 2 part time jobs at low pay, struggling to make ends meet.

[MsPithy]

9. Let's imagine for a moment, what Seniors could accomplish

if they didn't have to worry about which flavor of cat food they would have for dinner.

They could help care for grandchildren, volunteer at schools, mentor troubled teens, advise the business sector where they worked, provide support and companionship for other seniors, ...well, you get the idea.

Sure, they can do all these things, now, but it would be so much easier if they did not have to worry about mere existence.

[lame54]

14. Much different than the Townshend plan...

where people die before they get old

[magical thyme]

21. people working in hard labor/high stress jobs still die before they get very old.

As a general rule, it is the upper middle income and very wealthy who are living into their 90s, not the lower middle class and poor.

Furthermore, with obesity, type 2 diabetes and type 3 diabetes turning up earlier and earlier in life, I suspect it won't be long before we start seeing our average lifespans decrease.

Btw, at 82.7 years, Switzerland has a longer average life expectancy than the US., yet is voting on whether to provide a guaranteed income of $25,000/year to *all* citizens, not just seniors.

We hit 78.7 years in 2011, ranking us 26th in the world.

[Fawke Em]

23. LMAO!

[truedelphi]

16. K & R. And where do I go to get my money?

If only I had been born in Switzerland.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

20. I'd retire in a heartbeat

and open a job for a younger person.........

[pipi_k]

24. Are you kidding??

I'd be happy with half that.

It would still be almost $600 more per month than what I get now.

[magical thyme]

25. No, I'm not. The original proposal that led to the creation of SS was $150/mo

to everybody over age 60. Adjusted for inflation, using the linked calculator, brings the $2600+ total in my OP.

[marybourg]

26. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see discussion

about the most revolutionary part of the plan, which was that the recipients would be required to immediately SPEND every dollar, thus returning the asset to society, to pay other folk's wages while raising the seniors' standard of living.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Townsend_Plan

[TBF]

28. It would be a good start. K&R nt