I know. Let's fix Social Security with a tax on the rich.
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
But it's NOT savings. It's a tax. Nothing is "saved" - money comes in and goes out in the same year. It only appears to be a savings because the government makes promises in the form of little IOU's. There's no savings account - only an acknowledgment from the government that they owe you money in the event you live long enough to collect it. Otherwise, they don't pay you.rraley said:
It's not savings, because it's not your money.
RR, think about that for a minute. You kick over at age 61 and what happens to all the SS money that you had in "savings"? Answer: it gets thrown back into the pot. Your heirs and dependents won't see a dime of that money.SamSpade said:
However if you have a regular 401k or investments of some form, that money will be part of your estate and will go to whoever you want it to.
RR, The best way to keep government at any level from spending money is to never let it get into their control. That includes your savings. SS is not, as others have said, savings; it is a non-refundable tax.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
rr...
...this is about as closed minded as I've seen you.
Once again, as I have said and as Sam and others have said; SS is DONE. Demographics are the begining and end of the story. It's not 'if' we end it, it's 'how'. If you don't think lack of people paying in is a good enough reason to, as you say, face reality, then, by all means, explain how all the poor people should be supported by all the rich people in their dotage.
Further, let's ride you back some more here.
So, we do it for them?
What if not enough people have a home? Give it to them? No car? No big big screen TV?
People, whether they understand it or not, are screaming out loud "I know the government will take care of me...somehow'.
They, we, need to, again, face reality and accept that SS will NOT be there. It can't. We are wasting time and energy with the fantasy of saving SS and we are putting off the day when we, as a people, deal with this issue wisely.
...this is about as closed minded as I've seen you.
Once again, as I have said and as Sam and others have said; SS is DONE. Demographics are the begining and end of the story. It's not 'if' we end it, it's 'how'. If you don't think lack of people paying in is a good enough reason to, as you say, face reality, then, by all means, explain how all the poor people should be supported by all the rich people in their dotage.
Further, let's ride you back some more here.
So, we do it for them?
What if not enough people have a home? Give it to them? No car? No big big screen TV?
People, whether they understand it or not, are screaming out loud "I know the government will take care of me...somehow'.
They, we, need to, again, face reality and accept that SS will NOT be there. It can't. We are wasting time and energy with the fantasy of saving SS and we are putting off the day when we, as a people, deal with this issue wisely.
Mr. Gude, I'm not being close-minded, I'm being pragmatic and staying true to what I see on Social Security.
I see a looming problem with Social Security. Congressional Democrats are wrong to suggest that the program can succeed as it is currently structured long-term. Therefore, I support efforts to reform Social Security. Private accounts are an option, but I do not believe that that is a medicine that meets the diagnosis. Setting up these accounts would cut over a trillion dollars from the Social Security trust fund over ten years, thus causing the benefit/tax deficits to start before the current projection of 2018 and the insolvency of the program to be pushed forward several years. This is not reform, it is an effort to undo Social Security, which I believe is a terrific social insurance program that benefits everyone equally and provides a safety net for poor retirement pensions or poor investment decisions.
I support efforts to increase the solvency of Social Security because I believe that simply allowing it to disband would jeopardize the retirements of far too many people. I fully believe in Senator Graham's proposal to increase the income cap for Social Security taxes, the ending of early withdrawal, the increasing of the retirement age as life expectancy increases, and the recalculation of wages based on inflation. To further ensure greater solvency for the program, I believe that the use of Social Security taxes for anything but the trust fund and payout of benefits should be stopped. We could have saved $300 billion towards future benefits this budget year had we not spent excess Social Security taxes on other items. That money, along with extra money we accumulate over the next decade, would greatly help to expand the base of money we need to compensate for any future benefit deficit.
This proposal is pragmatic because it does what we need to do: increases solvency for the program. It does not pursue an ideological agenda because it combines minimally higher taxes and a small reduction in benefits while ensuring future financial responsibility by placing that "lockbox" on the Social Security trust fund. There are two extremes on the matter of Social Security: the "let's allow it to run out" end and the "there is no problem" end. I find myself in the middle and I'm taking heat from both sides: well I can take the heat, I'll stay in the kitchen.
I see a looming problem with Social Security. Congressional Democrats are wrong to suggest that the program can succeed as it is currently structured long-term. Therefore, I support efforts to reform Social Security. Private accounts are an option, but I do not believe that that is a medicine that meets the diagnosis. Setting up these accounts would cut over a trillion dollars from the Social Security trust fund over ten years, thus causing the benefit/tax deficits to start before the current projection of 2018 and the insolvency of the program to be pushed forward several years. This is not reform, it is an effort to undo Social Security, which I believe is a terrific social insurance program that benefits everyone equally and provides a safety net for poor retirement pensions or poor investment decisions.
I support efforts to increase the solvency of Social Security because I believe that simply allowing it to disband would jeopardize the retirements of far too many people. I fully believe in Senator Graham's proposal to increase the income cap for Social Security taxes, the ending of early withdrawal, the increasing of the retirement age as life expectancy increases, and the recalculation of wages based on inflation. To further ensure greater solvency for the program, I believe that the use of Social Security taxes for anything but the trust fund and payout of benefits should be stopped. We could have saved $300 billion towards future benefits this budget year had we not spent excess Social Security taxes on other items. That money, along with extra money we accumulate over the next decade, would greatly help to expand the base of money we need to compensate for any future benefit deficit.
This proposal is pragmatic because it does what we need to do: increases solvency for the program. It does not pursue an ideological agenda because it combines minimally higher taxes and a small reduction in benefits while ensuring future financial responsibility by placing that "lockbox" on the Social Security trust fund. There are two extremes on the matter of Social Security: the "let's allow it to run out" end and the "there is no problem" end. I find myself in the middle and I'm taking heat from both sides: well I can take the heat, I'll stay in the kitchen.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Come on...
Explain how you would reform it when there will be ONE payee for every payer.
BIRTH RATES. One mom. One dad. Two kids. I'm not making this up. It's been this way for awhile. It, the ratio, is getting lower.
A looming problem would be high tide to a sand castle. This, the boomers, is a Tsunami.
Let's here it.
Explain how you would reform it when there will be ONE payee for every payer.
BIRTH RATES. One mom. One dad. Two kids. I'm not making this up. It's been this way for awhile. It, the ratio, is getting lower.
A looming problem would be high tide to a sand castle. This, the boomers, is a Tsunami.
Let's here it.
Demographics are supposed to equalize after the Baby Boom generation dies according to many researchers. In essence, there will be about a twenty year crunch, but then dynamics should be more favorable.
To read more check up on the writings of Henry J. Aaron and John B. Shoven; one supports partial privatization, the other does not. They clearly line out the demographics shifts in the United States and how they are to change over the next century.
To read more check up on the writings of Henry J. Aaron and John B. Shoven; one supports partial privatization, the other does not. They clearly line out the demographics shifts in the United States and how they are to change over the next century.