Like his entire presidency...

[GG]

Social Security crisis - Eliminate the cap on taxable wages.  That would fix 75% of the problem in one fell swoop and put the looming crisis out about 50 years.  This solution also doesn't create a couple of trillion dollars in new debt in order to start private accounts.  This also means that the marginal Social Security tax rate on wages is the same for a million dollar salary as a $20,000 salary.

478707[/snapback]

 

Ahh, good plan. Let's add a tax that will shave GDP growth instead of focusing on a solution to reduce the entitlements. Let's keep pushing the real problem out for another 50 years. We'll be dead when the bills come due.

[KD in CA]

You can call it whatever you want, but social security tax has always been a "tax".  Most people won't admit it, but Social Security is a welfare program.  The vast majority of retirees get back much more in benefits than they ever paid into the system in taxes.  Why do you think that the system is going broke?

 

 

 

Yeah, except the people already maxing out will NOT get more in benefits than they paid in, they will get less. Therefore, those are the very last people who should be penalized further. If you are worried about people taking too much out of the program, that's fine. Let's reduce benefits to match what people have put in.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Ahh, good plan. Let's add a tax that will shave GDP growth instead of focusing on a solution to reduce the entitlements.  Let's keep pushing the real  problem out for another 50 years.  We'll be dead when the bills come due.

478839[/snapback]

 

Well, the Republican plan to use private accounts will add Trillions in debt and cut benefits. That's quite a solution. Bush's plan calls for 1-2% to go into a private account. For someone making $30,000/yr, that means $300-$600 annual into their private account. That would really add up to a big nest egg.

[KRC]

Well, the Republican plan to use private accounts will add Trillions in debt and cut benefits.  That's quite a solution.  Bush's plan calls for 1-2% to go into a private account.  For someone making $30,000/yr, that means $300-$600 annual into their private account.  That would really add up to a big nest egg. 

478937[/snapback]

 

Here is a thought...Do both. For the people who need the government to take care of them, let them use the bureaucratic blackhole that is SS. For those who can actually take care of themselves, let them use private accounts. Everyone gets what they want.

 

Just remember...

 

Raising taxes bad!

Removing government control of our lives good!

 

Social Security cannot work the way it was designed. Pushing off the problem 50 years is ridiculous. It is an admission that the system is a failure and that the solution proposed is ridiculous.

 

Fix it now, don't dump this mess on our kids and grandkids.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Yeah, except the people already maxing out will NOT get more in benefits than they paid in, they will get less.  Therefore, those are the very last people who should be penalized further.  If you are worried about people taking too much out of the program, that's fine.  Let's reduce benefits to match what people have put in.

478842[/snapback]

 

Well, neither does the guy who dies before collecting benefits. Are you also advocating that the unpaid benefits go to a person's estate at the time of his or her death?

 

Social Security should be a safety net not an entitlement. Does Warren Buffett really need his Social Security check each month?

[KRC]

Are you also advocating that the unpaid benefits go to a person's estate at the time of his or her death? 

478940[/snapback]

 

An ownership society? Hmmm...imagine the benefits to the poor in helping them get out of poverty. They actually get to keep the money they earn and pass it on to their families. Private accounts would give you that benefit. I can see now why the Democrats would oppose it.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Here is a thought...Do both. For the people who need the government to take care of them, let them use the bureaucratic blackhole that is SS. For those who can actually take care of themselves, let them use private accounts. Everyone gets what they want.

 

Just remember...

 

Raising taxes bad!

Removing government control of our lives good!

 

Social Security cannot work the way it was designed. Pushing off the problem 50 years is ridiculous. It is an admission that the system is a failure and that the solution proposed is ridiculous.

 

Fix it now, don't dump this mess on our kids and grandkids.

478938[/snapback]

 

Well, the Bush "Fix it now" adds trillions of new debt and cuts benefits. You can't divert new dollars to savings accounts without further bankrupting the current program.

 

BTW, we already have private accounts. They're called 401k plans and most people already have them.

[KRC]

Well, the Bush "Fix it now" adds trillions of new debt and cuts benefits.  You can't divert new dollars to savings accounts without further bankrupting the current program.

 

BTW, we already have private accounts.  They're called 401k plans and most people already have them.

478946[/snapback]

 

We pay into SS and will receive nothing in return (it will be bankrupt before you or I receive benefits). Yeah, real smart. Waiting to fix the mess will only increase the costs to fix it. Again, real smart. Something needs to be done now, not 50 years in the future.

 

I never advocated the Bush plan, so it boggles my mind why you bring it up in response to my post.

 

Yeah, we have private accounts. They work well, don't they? Why wouldn't you want to extend that to SS? Because <gasp> it might actually allow the poor to create wealth and they would not be dependent on Democrats for money?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

An ownership society? Hmmm...imagine the benefits to the poor in helping them get out of poverty. They actually get to keep the money they earn and pass it on to their families. Private accounts would give you that benefit. I can see now why the Democrats would oppose it. 

478941[/snapback]

 

And for only a few trillion dollars, we can do this. So where does the money come from to convert?

 

I have no problem with private accounts other than:

 

1. The trillions of dollars needed to convert.

 

2. Private accounts do nothing about the other social security programs of SSDI and payments to dependent children.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

We pay into SS and will receive nothing in return (it will be bankrupt before you or I receive benefits). Yeah, real smart. Waiting to fix the mess will only increase the costs to fix it. Again, real smart. Something needs to be done now, not 50 years in the future.

 

I never advocated the Bush plan, so it boggles my mind why you bring it up in response to my post.

 

Yeah, we have private accounts. They work well, don't they? Why wouldn't you want to extend that to SS? Because <gasp> it might actually allow the poor to create wealth and they would not be dependent on Democrats for money?

478949[/snapback]

 

Sorry, what is the KRC plan for converting to private accounts? How do you continue to pay beneficiaries without social security taxes? Where does the money come from to convert? Is there some new math that I'm not aware of?

[Ghost of BiB]

And for only a few trillion dollars, we can do this.  So where does the money come from to convert?

 

I have no problem with private accounts other than:

 

1.  The trillions of dollars needed to convert.

 

2.  Private accounts do nothing about the other social security programs of SSDI and payments to dependent children.

478950[/snapback]

 

 

What about people who die after paying in for many years before ever being able to draw any benefits? Does this just become free money for the government fund? My wife passed away at 42. Any money she paid in is gone. I don't want it - don't need it - but it seems that with a private account of some type a survivor might be able to cash in on it to help live through things at their retirement. I'm especially thinking of the loss of the primary income provider.

[KRC]

Sorry, what is the KRC plan for converting to private accounts?  How do you continue to pay beneficiaries without social security taxes?  Where does the money come from to convert?  Is there some new math that I'm not aware of?

478951[/snapback]

 

I will address both of your posts in this post. Of course it will cost money to convert. Pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is simple, at least to me.

 

Take the current tax rate for SS. This will not change (I am against raising taxes since we have NEVER taxed our way into prosperity. Taxes are too high as it is and I am not going to burden the citizens of this country with higher taxes).

 

Use the W2 form you fill out each year. There will be a box where the person chooses a government controlled retirement account or a private account. If they choose a government controlled account, then the money gets sent to Washington. If you choose a private account, it gets put into a money market account set up by your employer (just like your current 401k). You then have the option to do what you want with the money (just like a 401k).

 

When you pass on, your money gets passed on to your assigned beneficiary. This creates wealth for the poor. They get to actually keep the money they earn.

 

As far as the changeover, it will be graduated to spread out the costs. The money will come from reductions in government spending. I remember an article a few years back (when Bush was first proposing his tax cuts) where it was announced that billions of dollars went missing from government coffers. It just disappeared and nobody cared. This shows that there is plenty that can be cut from the government with negligible effect. If they do not even bat an eyelash at losing billions of dollars, then there is a real problem (as if it was not blatantly obvious before that incident).

 

No solution is free. All solutions will cost money. Again, pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future.

 

THe one thing to keep in mind with my plan is that TAXES WILL NOT GO UP.

[KRC]

What about people who die after paying in for many years before ever being able to draw any benefits? Does this just become free money for the government fund? My wife passed away at 42. Any money she paid in is gone. I don't want it - don't need it - but it seems that with a private account of some type a survivor might be able to cash in on it to help live through things at their retirement. I'm especially thinking of the loss of the primary income provider.

478954[/snapback]

 

Think of it as "contributing to the greater good of the government." This new found money can be used to create more government dependency. Ain't it great?

 

Private accounts give the ability to build wealth. Think of the advantages for the poor.

[Adam]

Actually, that's not true.  I was interviewed at the local gas station being asked about high gas prices, and I wasn't pre-interviewed.

475727[/snapback]

Not that what you think about gas isnt important- but this is much more important

[Adam]

I will address both of your posts in this post. Of course it will cost money to convert. Pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is simple, at least to me.

 

Take the current tax rate for SS. This will not change (I am against raising taxes since we have NEVER taxed our way into prosperity. Taxes are too high as it is and I am not going to burden the citizens of this country with higher taxes).

 

Use the W2 form you fill out each year. There will be a box where the person chooses a government controlled retirement account or a private account. If they choose a government controlled account, then the money gets sent to Washington. If you choose a private account, it gets put into a money market account set up by your employer (just like your current 401k). You then have the option to do what you want with the money (just like a 401k).

 

When you pass on, your money gets passed on to your assigned beneficiary. This creates wealth for the poor. They get to actually keep the money they earn.

 

As far as the changeover, it will be graduated to spread out the costs. The money will come from reductions in government spending. I remember an article a few years back (when Bush was first proposing his tax cuts) where it was announced that billions of dollars went missing from government coffers. It just disappeared and nobody cared. This shows that there is plenty that can be cut from the government with negligible effect. If they do not even bat an eyelash at losing billions of dollars, then there is a real problem (as if it was not blatantly obvious before that incident).

 

No solution is free. All solutions will cost money. Again, pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future.

 

THe one thing to keep in mind with my plan is that TAXES WILL NOT GO UP.

478958[/snapback]

 

I'm n ot against private accounts, but wouldn't it be easier to just push social security back, so you get it at a much later age- like about 15 more years? I think when it started, it began about 3-4 years before someone's life expectency was up. This could be used to transition us into privatized accounts if that even happens

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I will address both of your posts in this post. Of course it will cost money to convert. Pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is simple, at least to me.

 

Take the current tax rate for SS. This will not change (I am against raising taxes since we have NEVER taxed our way into prosperity. Taxes are too high as it is and I am not going to burden the citizens of this country with higher taxes).

 

Use the W2 form you fill out each year. There will be a box where the person chooses a government controlled retirement account or a private account. If they choose a government controlled account, then the money gets sent to Washington. If you choose a private account, it gets put into a money market account set up by your employer (just like your current 401k). You then have the option to do what you want with the money (just like a 401k).

 

When you pass on, your money gets passed on to your assigned beneficiary. This creates wealth for the poor. They get to actually keep the money they earn.

 

As far as the changeover, it will be graduated to spread out the costs. The money will come from reductions in government spending. I remember an article a few years back (when Bush was first proposing his tax cuts) where it was announced that billions of dollars went missing from government coffers. It just disappeared and nobody cared. This shows that there is plenty that can be cut from the government with negligible effect. If they do not even bat an eyelash at losing billions of dollars, then there is a real problem (as if it was not blatantly obvious before that incident).

 

No solution is free. All solutions will cost money. Again, pay now or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future.

 

THe one thing to keep in mind with my plan is that TAXES WILL NOT GO UP.

478958[/snapback]

 

The Bush proposal converts just 1-2% of SS taxes to private accounts and will costs more than a TRILLION dollars. You advocate the whole 14% or so going to private accounts. How long will it take to gradually find the 25-30 TRILLION dollars needed to convert everyone?

 

Of course, your proposal doesn't account for SSDI or dependent children either. Let's say, another 5 TRILLION dollars.

 

So, we just have to gradually come up with about 35 TRILLION dollars in government savings. That's a lot of $1000 toilet seats.

[KRC]

The Bush proposal converts just 1-2% of SS taxes to private accounts and will costs more than a TRILLION dollars.  You advocate the whole 14% or so going to private accounts.  How long will it take to gradually find the 25-30 TRILLION dollars needed to convert everyone? 

 

Of course, your proposal doesn't account for SSDI or dependent children either.  Let's say, another 5 TRILLION dollars.

 

So, we just have to gradually come up with about 35 TRILLION dollars in government savings.  That's a lot of $1000 toilet seats. 

478968[/snapback]

 

You continually try to use Bush's plan. What part of "I do not support Bush's plan" did you not grasp? Since Bush did not actually provide a detailed plan, it is impossible to attribute costs to it. This seems like such a basic concept, but yet (as evidence in this thread) it is such a difficult concept for some.

 

Cut wasteful spending and you would be suprised at how much money you will have. As you cut spending, you will increase government revenue (due to the taxes remaining constant). The combination of the two will pay for the plan. Then you can start rudicing the tax burden on the citizens, giving them even more to save for retirement.

 

Pay a lot now, or pay a HELL of a lot more in the future. The choice is obvious.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

What about people who die after paying in for many years before ever being able to draw any benefits? Does this just become free money for the government fund? My wife passed away at 42. Any money she paid in is gone. I don't want it - don't need it - but it seems that with a private account of some type a survivor might be able to cash in on it to help live through things at their retirement. I'm especially thinking of the loss of the primary income provider.

478954[/snapback]

 

In the case of a primary income provider dying young, SS payments are made to his or her children until age 18. The spouse can also collect SS retirement benefits based on the deceased earning recprd. My mother-in-law was widowed twice and started collecting on one husband's SS at age 62 and switched to the other at age 65 for a larger benefit.

 

BTW, I have no problem with private accounts. I just feel that nobody wants to adequately consider the enormous cost to convert from the present system including the other part of Social Security which pays for disabilities and early death benefits to children.

[KRC]

I'm n ot against private accounts, but wouldn't it be easier to just push social security back, so you get it at a much later age- like about 15 more years? I think when it started, it began about 3-4 years before someone's life expectency was up. This could be used to transition us into privatized accounts if that even happens

478967[/snapback]

 

That is an option, but not an option that will fly with the public. You need a solution that does not increase taxes and does not cut benefits.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I also read that his approval rating among Blacks was 2%.

478709[/snapback]

 

Gee, there's a shocker. Don't you know that Bush hates blacks?