Bush Correct On Social Security and Medicare..
By: Pam On: May/2/06 - 23 Comments
I know it isn’t polite to lead off with an “I Told You So”, but it is so approriate right now! This NYT article has some numbers on the 2 programs. It appears that Medicare is solvent until 2018 and Social Security will make it until 2040, at which time, Social Security tax collections would be adequate to pay only 74 percent of scheduled benefits.
How did Harry Reid react?
The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said the reports showed that “despite White House scare tactics, Social Security remains sound for decades to come.”
May 2, 2006 - 02:26 PM on May 2nd, 2006
whoa. White House scare tactics?
Pfft. Put that in your lock box!
May 2, 2006 - 02:30 PM on May 2nd, 2006
What manner of crack is Harry Reid on, exactly?
May 2, 2006 - 02:51 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Nobody ever said that Bush was wrong, the numbers don’t lie…
We just don’t agree on the resolution. Private accounts are not the answer.
Raising the taxable cap and raising the retirement age (I just pissed off some liberals there) will fix this in one swoop.
May 2, 2006 - 02:53 PM on May 2nd, 2006
why are private accounts not the answer? You are aware that, as the baby boomers begin to collect, our tax rate is going to go through the roof….oh, I forgot, you are a liberal, it’s not my money anyway, it belongs to Ted Kennedy and John Kohn and Nancy Pelosi, to spend as they see fit.
May 2, 2006 - 02:54 PM on May 2nd, 2006
no man, hell no, I believe someone would get their ass kicked!
May 2, 2006 - 03:04 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Did you see I replied with that on your “Peter man” post?!?
haha…GREAT movie!
May 2, 2006 - 03:06 PM on May 2nd, 2006
“You are aware that, as the baby boomers begin to collect, our tax rate is going to go through the roof”
So raise the retirement age and raise the cap above $90,000.
Poof! Problem solved.
May 2, 2006 - 03:31 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Said San Fran- Raising the taxable cap and raising the retirement age (I just pissed off some liberals there) will fix this in one swoop.
Poof! Problem solved.
Well, since it’s inception, the FICA rate has changed 21 times since 1937 (1% in 1937 and 7.65% in 2005) and the taxable earnings ceiling has changed 39 times.($3,000 in 1937 and $90,000 in 2005, up from $68,000 in 1999). Source
So I don’t think that just raising the rates is the answer. And what age do you think it should be?
May 2, 2006 - 04:19 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Raise the cap up to $200,000 OR MORE - and raise the retiremment age to 68. (it’s 65 now, no?)
May 2, 2006 - 04:35 PM on May 2nd, 2006
How about adding a line to the 1040 form where you can voluntarily pay extra tax for it? I know that Liberals love taxes, so they should be all for this. I am sure they will sign up voluntarily.
May 2, 2006 - 04:39 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Well, except for the richest, elite limousine Liberals, like the Kennedy family, who has put their fortune in trust, well out of the reach of taxes.
Hypocrites…
May 2, 2006 - 04:46 PM on May 2nd, 2006
“How about adding a line to the 1040 form where you can voluntarily pay extra tax for it? I know that Liberals love taxes, so they should be all for this. I am sure they will sign up voluntarily.”
Good idea, man. I would sign a buck or two over to The Fund.
May 2, 2006 - 04:50 PM on May 2nd, 2006
9- as this source points out, by raising the rates to $200, 000, you are adding just a few years to the solvency. And remember, that as you raise the cap, the people paying at the top will be receiving more in benefits.
additional info from the site here
May 2, 2006 - 04:54 PM on May 2nd, 2006
You can make payments to the SS office at anytime. You can also chose not to take deductions on your tax forms if you feel you don’t deserve the deductions afforded you…
May 2, 2006 - 05:12 PM on May 2nd, 2006
I reject your Heritage Foundation link as a valid source.
You can pay those guys and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear.
That Conservative Think-Tank is biased.
“You can make payments to the SS office at anytime.”
I think on the tax forms is the best place, that way EVERYONE sees it, not just those with the moxie to march to the local SS office with pocket change.
May 2, 2006 - 05:21 PM on May 2nd, 2006
You demand evidence, proof, and when it is posted, you simply reject the source. A very common trick. You are rather predicatble.
I’ll guess which sources you use and approve of:
CNN
NY Times
CBS
ABS
NBC
Air America Radio
Al Jizzeera
Dan Rather
Tawana Brawley
SF Bay Guardian
Berkeley Barb (if they’re still around)
May 2, 2006 - 05:43 PM on May 2nd, 2006
“You demand evidence, proof, and when it is posted, you simply reject the source.”
A tactic straight out of your sides play book.
No, but really, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank – people put a quarter in them, and out pops an opinion piece.
May 2, 2006 - 07:23 PM on May 2nd, 2006
“I’ll guess which sources you use and approve of:
CNN
NY Times”
Like it or not, MSM is called mainstream for a reason.
Even this discussion started because of a New York Times article…
May 2, 2006 - 07:44 PM on May 2nd, 2006
Well San Fran, I’ll correct a little misconception you have before I say anything else on this. The retirement age for anyone born after (I believe though I may be off a year or so) was raised 3 years ago to 67.
The first proponent of private accounts was FDR. But seeing as the SEC hadn’t really come into its own yet, the Republicans, fearing another Great Depression, voted against them for fear that people would lose their pensions investing in an uncontrolled market that could crash again like it had in October of 1929.
A little known, or at least little advertised fact, is that while the Democratic Representatives and Senators who so adamantly and vocally oppose giving people the OPTION (Pro choice my ass) to invest a PORTION of their Social Security taxes into a private account, they themselves and their staffs are in fact NOT ENROLLED in the Social Security benefit system. They are universally enrolled in a government employee plan that is identical to the plan that George W. Bush wanted to make available to the general public. With that in mind, I would have to ask them that if the private accounts are so bad, why are they and their staffs invested in them? The obvious conclusion is that they are either total idiots to be in the private accounts, or that the accounts are actually good in which case their negative comments about them are lies. So those congressmen who come out against offering people the option of private accounts are either liars or fools.
The Private accounts plan for government employees has been around since the mid 80s. Those government employees who opted to go into the plans now have retirement payments of around 3 times that of those who didn’t. Brazil’s social pension plan was going bankrupt until they offered the private accounts plan. Initially only around 25% signed up, but, as it became apparent that those who were in the plans were going to retire substantially better off than those who didn’t, enrollment has increased to around 90%.
My question is this. If the private accounts are so bad, why not allow people the choice of selecting to be in them or not? The Bush Social Security plan didn’t require anyone to go into the private accounts, it only gave the option to those who wanted to do so. It didn’t eliminate regular social security benefits to those who opted for private accounts, only lowered them to offset their private account contributions. Why not let people choose how they want to fund their retirement? The current Social Security system is a broken disaster. It was never meant to be anything but a safety net, not a full blown pension plan. It will soon become a drag on the economy that can’t be fixed without totally overhauling it. If we don’t fix it permanently now, the more it’s going to cost and the harder it’s going to be to fix later.
Einstein when asked what did he feel was the strongest force in the Universe replied “Compound interest” Even the least agressive (and hence lowest risk) of the private accounts is paying over 4% versus the 1 1/2% of the current system. For those with little money experience, that means that a dollar put into the private account will double every 18 years while ever dollar put into the current plan doubles every 48 years. In other words, for a worker going into the private account at 18, at age 67 that first dollar he put in will yield around $3.75 (plus the original dollar) while in the current plan it would yield around $1.02 (plus the original dollar). Which would you rather have to retire on? And that’s the LEAST aggressive of the plans. Others have even higher yields. If a plan has a return of just 6%, that original dollar would be worth over $8.00. Some plans have been running over 8%. At 8% the return would exceed $24.00. Why wouldn’t anyone under 50 want to improve their retirement benefits substantially? The proposal even allowed people to change plans depending on their current needs.
May 2, 2006 - 07:50 PM on May 2nd, 2006
When you look into the Social Security system and see the real numbers, then realize (as you have posted) that the Gov’t employees have their own private pension system (PERS), which is invested in the stock market and other investments), you naturally ask why if SS is so great has Congress and Gov’t employees carved out their own system?
This is one of the worst big lies and big schemes that has been pulled on the public.
May 2, 2006 - 07:54 PM on May 2nd, 2006
“No, but really, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank – people put a quarter in them, and out pops an opinion piece.”
That’s the way it is with about 99% of the originators of the reports the MSM blathers about in “news” stories. Whether its global warming, racism, what have you, they put out these “news” stories citing “a report” that are pure propaganda by special interest groups looking to help their fundraising, or release a paid for conclusion.
Thats why most MSM = garbage.
May 3, 2006 - 06:42 AM on May 3rd, 2006
“pay only 74 percent of scheduled benefits”
If I get 74% I’ll be just fine with that. It’s the poor and dumb who will be hurt.
May 4, 2006 - 10:59 PM on May 4th, 2006
If I get 74% I’ll be just fine with that. It’s the poor and dumb who will be hurt.
Yes that may be Zelda, but wouldn’t you prefer having a benefit that’s 4 -5 times that? The current social security plan is a pyramid scheme with those of us on the bottom getting nothing. Besides isn’t the “Poor and Dumb” the ones the social security system was supposed to provide a safety net for? I don’t expect to collect on it, but being able to leave a portion of my contributions to someone instead of the state would be rather nice.