Post #192,673
2/2/05 2:36:22 PM
|
SS Plan Thought-out (or not)
[link|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6901516/|55 cut off]
so what about the person who is 54, 53 etc
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #192,679
2/2/05 3:09:28 PM
|
Well, we still get ...
to pay for all the excesses enjoyed by our parents generation. (speaking as a 45 year old).
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #192,692
2/2/05 4:53:52 PM
|
Speaking as a 46 year old...
I think I'm boned.
Tom Sinclair
"This is a lovely party," said the Bursar to a chair, "I wish I was here."
-- The Bursar is a man under a *lot* of stress
(Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies)
|
Post #192,807
2/3/05 7:13:43 AM
|
Speaking as a 54 year old...
I expected nothing better. With any luck I'll be able to work until I die. Without luck...
|
Post #192,712
2/2/05 6:08:23 PM
|
According to the article's (unscientific) web poll...
72% of those responding disapprove of Duh's attempt to move more of the nation's wealth to the already wealthy"fix" Social Security.
Could this be Duh's Waterloo?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #192,811
2/3/05 8:15:37 AM
|
Never bet on the intelligence of the majority of Muricans.
I watched some senate testimony on this. I've always been a huge advocate of removing the cap from FICA, but have never seen any analysis of what impact that would have on the fund. For me, it didn't matter. It was an issue of fairness (why tax those who can afford the least at a profoundly higher rate than those who can afford it the most - for what is after all, a communal safety net?). But, one of the more interesting things I heard during the testimony was that raising the cap to $140,000 - not eliminating it as I propose - would eliminate 47% of the Fund's shortfall. This wasn't disputed by anyone. Amazing, idn't it? Makes me think that eliminating the cap entirely might be enough all by itself to correct the problems SS faces.
What got Governor Lamb of Colorado in such trouble, imo, was not his statement that the "elderly have a duty to die and get out of the way of the next generation" but had far more to do with his SS reform idea. "Pay back everything everyone paid in, plus interest, and then subject them to means testing." All those assholes that put $30,000 to $40,000 in and took $250,000 or more out probably didn't like that too much. Particularly those who already had several million/billion laying around to begin with.
I've no problem with means testing, but the most important thing to do is eliminate the cap. Hell, I bet if they did that, they'd probably be able to reduce the rate for everybody.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #192,816
2/3/05 8:41:48 AM
|
I think they'll have to raise it.
I read Bush's SotU speech. He, of course, spun things to make his proposals sound reasonable, but some of them are easily refuted.
His biggest problem is he wants to do big things (Mars, Iraq, Hydrogen, No Child Left Behind, SS, Medicare Drug Benefit, "Tax Reform", etc.) but is unwilling to pay for them. He's convinced that increasing any sort of tax rate will destroy the economy and make things worse. This blindness to simple arithmetic is quite damaging.
The FICA cap made some sense when 10+ people were paying in for each retiree, when benefits weren't automatically indexed to inflation, when there weren't so many disability programs, when people didn't collect benefits for 20+ years, etc. SS needs more money because of demographics and because Congress is petrified of reducing the automatic increases that people get.
There are only a few ways to get more money: 1) Increase the number of people paying in substantially (e.g. larger families, higher immigration), 2) Increase the tax rate, 3) Increase the income subject to tax, 4) Take money from a different source. #2 is probably a non-starter for many. I suspect that 1,3,4 will be part of the solution.
I do think that something needs to be done about the system. I favor slowly increasing the cap and changing the formula for future increases. I think that private accounts are a good idea, but not as part of SS.
Bush wants to change things substantially but refuses to accept that it'll cost money to do so. He can do it for free if we increase immigration by, say, 10 M a year, but the costs will be very large. Otherwise, the money is going to have to come from taxes of some sort, not from some magical Growth Fairy.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #192,818
2/3/05 9:09:06 AM
|
Pay tax on whole income
and have a max benefit regardless of what's paid in
have a means test, no rich collect
put the social in social security
A
Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy
Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET
All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM
Reggae, African and Caribbean Music
[link|http://wxxe.org|Tune In]
|
Post #192,831
2/3/05 10:23:56 AM
|
Wait a minute here . . .
. . you don't believe in the Growth Fairy? Are you some sort of Commie-Pinko?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #192,835
2/3/05 10:49:03 AM
|
I thought the Growth Fairy did mostly moles and waistlines?
[link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #192,845
2/3/05 11:45:24 AM
|
Yes, and that explains why . . .
. . so many neocons are overweight and ugly. Faith in the Growth Fairy is powerful!
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #192,859
2/3/05 12:26:09 PM
|
Big things? New Label: Red Ink Republicans
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #192,821
2/3/05 9:36:15 AM
|
"Benefits Offset"
From: [link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59136-2005Feb2.html?sub=AR|http://www.washingto...5Feb2.html?sub=AR]
"If a worker sets aside $1,000 a year for 40 years, and earns 4 percent annually on investments, the account would grow to $99,800 in today's dollars, but the government would keep $78,700 -- or about 80 percent of the account. The remainder, $21,100, would be the worker's."
...
"The administration official explained that the "benefit offset" merely ensures that those who choose personal accounts are not given an unfair advantage over the traditional system."
Can't have people getting an unfair advantage, can we?
|
Post #192,823
2/3/05 9:57:15 AM
|
Bush following Bill's lead.
"Indeed, the system would ultimately look something like a proposal made by President Bill Clinton, in which the government would have invested Social Security taxes in the stock market.
That idea was criticized by conservatives because the federal government could end up choosing winners and losers in the financial markets." Can you say, "weasels in the henhouse"? [link|http://forfree.sytes.net|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #192,826
2/3/05 10:12:40 AM
|
Part of the opposition's job is to oppose.
Unfortunately, too often knee-jerk opposition takes the place of thoughtful compromise. But it's nothing new.
... won't get fooled again...
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #192,837
2/3/05 10:53:03 AM
|
But no counter balance
I would consider holding part of that money back resonable if there was some fixed mininum that you couldn't go below no matter how badly you invested. But so far I havn't seen that there is any saftey net for people that choose to take their money out.
As far as I can see, the only reason to get involved in this investment plan is if there is a significant penalty for not doing it. Which is where I expect the cut in benefits for people that don't invest comes in.
Another thing that worries me is how the government will decide what you can invest in and what you can't. There are several different ways I can see that being abused, from the blatent kick backs to get on the investment list to the subtle influencing of the economy based on how you are allowed to invest the money.
Bush also threw a straight up wopper in his speech last night. He said that the money you invest is yours and can be inherited by your family. But the plan being put forth so far doesn't allow that, instead that money is absorbed back into the general fund.
Of course, the offical proposal has not really been put forth, so it's hard to really complain about the details. This seems to be a consistant Bush strategy, hold back the actual details until a majority has been convinced that something must be done and that the general idea is OK. Thus, by the time they make the plan available, people are arguing over the details not the question of the whole plan being a good idea or not.
Jay
|
Post #192,878
2/3/05 1:02:39 PM
|
You have to explain that a bit...
The plan is more complicated. Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent.
That money would augment a guaranteed Social Security benefit that would be reduced by a still-undetermined amount from the currently promised benefit.
In effect, the accounts would work more like a loan from the government, to be paid back upon retirement at an inflation-adjusted 3 percent interest rate -- the interest the money would have earned if it had been invested in Treasury bonds, said Peter R. Orszag, a Social Security analyst at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton White House economist.
In effect, the money you earn (from your money) is any money returned from your investment over 3%. Apparently, if you don't earn at least 3%, your long term benefits from SS would be reduced. It's a variation of Clinton's investing in the Stock Market plan.
|
Post #192,924
2/3/05 4:51:16 PM
|
Story changing already
The White House is now saying that the government would not take back any of the money you earned. From the looks of things, the White House was just unclear on how Bush's proposal last night was different from the ones put forth previously.
This would make the plan more attractive to people, but more expensive for the government.
Jay
|
Post #192,925
2/3/05 5:01:36 PM
|
Of course, no matter how they set this up now, it can change
They wouldn't have to take anything back to be able to reduce the cost of the program. They could just adjust the tax rate on Social Security income, or adjust the old-age exemption, or any number of other things without explicitly touching the SS benefit.
I chuckle to myself whenever Bush talks about making his tax cuts "permanent" or others saying that SS is a "solemn agreement with the American people" or whatever. Congress isn't going to give up its power to tinker with tax rates and the rules no matter how "permanent" they claim these things are.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #192,951
2/3/05 11:00:06 PM
|
Re: SS Plan Thought-out (or not)
However spun, this is another Repo language murder, and it is not about 'ownership'.
Ownership involves benefits AND the risks (of say, a major reversal in 'investments' during one's later years).
As commented by an analyst on NPR today - 'ownership' as say, a stockholder of some company(ies) implies today, no more than some theoretical element of control of that org's performance.
The concept of SS under attack is that of insurance, with the folks (imagining selves Ayn Rand-y without really knowing much about her. Either.) proposing to invoke more Rugged Induhvidualism, creating the necessity of an individual investing so shrewdly as to beat inflation by at least 3%: forever, no matter how long one survives.
Yeah Right: same folks as can't pay off CCs beyond minimum bal. while Knowing they are paying absurdly artificial rates - these are going to diligently manage that ol portfolio 24/7. (And it will be Their Own Fault when they end up with that rusty shopping cart, just after their hovel has been repossessed for stiffing The Doctor of the $200 fee for the last flu shot [thinking say, 2020 prices here]).
Just more biz-talk fantasy by the Tories (who correctly? surmise that.. most folks haven't noticed what will be bartered) for the warm fuzzy Ownership Society\ufffd logo.
If the congresscritters eat this shit sandwich with the usual silence from the sheep - -
Pshaw. What Fools these Moralists be.
|
Post #193,003
2/4/05 8:08:45 AM
|
The "plan" is a sham no matter the details
The goal is still to eliminate SS, not save it.
-----------------------------------------
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
-- H. L. Mencken
|
