The hard sell on benefit cuts.
The Washington Post headline today reads, "BUSH SOCIAL SECURITY PLAN WOULD CUT FUTURE BENEFITS." The USA Today puts it, "BUSH: REIN IN SOCIAL SECURITY."
So, what's the big news? Bush has put some specificity behind the central idea of his Social Security plan. He's brought it out into the clear, put his cards on the table.
You thought that was "personal investment accounts,' right? Wrong. It's benefit cuts for young people and the middle class.
I've been trying to make a very simple point here at this blog. The Administration argues that we can't afford to keep our promise of Social Security's guarantee for the future. When it comes to dividing up the budget, they want to spend the money on other things: tax cuts and the military, in particular.
You may or may not think that these priorities are more important than Social Security, but you should really understand the trade-off that is in play. The Administration just doesn't think the country can afford Social Security. Its very straightforward. They have other priorities.
Now, in a major press conference, designed to get some forward momentum for what has thus far been a particularly unsuccessful bid to win public support for his privatization plan, the President proposed a change in how benefits are calculated that would reduce them dramatically over time.
The approach to cutting benefits would hit everyone who makes more than $20,000 per year. Its a particularly rough hit on the middle class, and the younger you are the worse it is. The average worker would face a benefit cut of 28 percent.
Trying to justify this large cut for younger workers, the Administration makes the point that their plan ensures that "future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than today's seniors."
As we have been saying all along, even if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt," benefits for in the future will still be larger for young people today than they are for today's seniors.
That's how you market a huge cut in benefits to young people. Tell them they won't get anything because the system is going 'flat bust." Then offer them a package that could leave them worse off than doing nothing at all.
Pretty slick.
So, what's the big news? Bush has put some specificity behind the central idea of his Social Security plan. He's brought it out into the clear, put his cards on the table.
You thought that was "personal investment accounts,' right? Wrong. It's benefit cuts for young people and the middle class.
I've been trying to make a very simple point here at this blog. The Administration argues that we can't afford to keep our promise of Social Security's guarantee for the future. When it comes to dividing up the budget, they want to spend the money on other things: tax cuts and the military, in particular.
You may or may not think that these priorities are more important than Social Security, but you should really understand the trade-off that is in play. The Administration just doesn't think the country can afford Social Security. Its very straightforward. They have other priorities.
Now, in a major press conference, designed to get some forward momentum for what has thus far been a particularly unsuccessful bid to win public support for his privatization plan, the President proposed a change in how benefits are calculated that would reduce them dramatically over time.
The approach to cutting benefits would hit everyone who makes more than $20,000 per year. Its a particularly rough hit on the middle class, and the younger you are the worse it is. The average worker would face a benefit cut of 28 percent.
Trying to justify this large cut for younger workers, the Administration makes the point that their plan ensures that "future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than today's seniors."
As we have been saying all along, even if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt," benefits for in the future will still be larger for young people today than they are for today's seniors.
That's how you market a huge cut in benefits to young people. Tell them they won't get anything because the system is going 'flat bust." Then offer them a package that could leave them worse off than doing nothing at all.
Pretty slick.
posted by Hans Riemer at 11:15 AM
48 Comments:
And here comes Hans again.
Clearly, Hans has chosen not to listen to the advice of anyone who has posted comments in response to his posts. This is upsetting, because Hans is apparently writing for Rock the Vote, which is supposed to be representing the sub-30 generation.
I think we all should be informed of something about Hans. I did some research last night, and Hans has been actively fighting against Social Security reform for years now- even before he joined Rock the Vote. Hans came out with a paper in 2002 that advocated increasing payroll taxes through making all income- not just income up to $90,000 a year- subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Hans has an agenda, folks, and he is using YOU GUYS to promote it. How Rock the Vote allowed someone with such a blindly partisan agenda to get this position is shocking.
Now, on to Hans's allegations:
As we have been saying all along, even if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt," benefits for in the future will still be larger for young people today than they are for today's seniors.
Yes, if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt", benefits in the future will be larger for us. But at what cost? Hans is leaving out that the Social Security trust fund would have to be paid off under the current system. That's $5 trillion in funding that will be demanded by our federal goverment, which WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY through increased taxes or even worse deficits. Now I ask you: is that worth keeping these "benefits" that are still going to be 27% lower than the current system promises? Absolutely not. The higher taxes you will have to pay ALONE will wipe out any benefit you'd get by staying with the current system.
The President's plan is actually one that was initially proposed by a Mr. Pozen, who is a Democrat. BENEFITS WILL NOT BE CUT UNDER THIS PROGRAM- only the growth in benefits will be slower. What does that mean? That benefits will continue to go up- only they will go up slower for the super-rich and they will go up faster for those who are poor.
Under this system, we all also get the added benefit of having the system become 70% solvent- that means SIGNIFICANTLY less budget problems in the future, and we also get the added benefit of having a personal account, should we choose to have one. If the history of the stock market is any indicator, those who take this option are likely to make substantial gains that would more than make up for any so-called "benefit cut" that Hans here is trying to scare people about.
Hans, admit your true agenda. You're over the age of 30, you've worked for years on stonewalling Social Security reform, all in favor of increasing taxes. You're sitting here trying to use the youth of America as your ignorant sheep, and some of us WILL stand up to you.
You are a partisan hack, and I have lost any and all respect for you in this Social Security manipulation that you've done.
Allow me to make one additional point:
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you people support Hans's plan, fine; but note that the money to pay for your "benefits" will have to come from somewhere. That's the trust fund, and YOU will pay higher taxes for it. Now, do you want to pay higher taxes for money that you get after the age of 67-70, a point where you might even die before, or would you rather have lower taxes so you can keep your money and do what you want with it?
The choice is obvious.
This plan by the President and Mr. Pozen solves the problem, eliminates most of the trust fund problem, gets people their benefits, gives them a personal account option if they want even MORE benefits, and most importantly of all: significantly lessens the probability of us young people having to pay higher taxes in the future, because this system won't blow up like it currently is going to.
And another thing, Hans: military spending and tax cuts have nothing to do with Social Security. Social Security is financed by payroll taxes, military and tax cuts are financed by general income tax revenue. Why are you leaving this crucial piece of information out of all of this? Do you REALLY think all of us are blind sheep?
Here you go again Hans, trying to screw our generation over. Is it that hard for your thick skull to accept that young people want personal accounts, and that they are actually what is best for them?!?!?!? Drop the show, Hans; step aside, and stop trying to SCREW us over!!!
We're getting sick of you Hans - cut the crap. We want personal accounts, and we will get them.
I think the most humorous part of all of this is that Mr. Reimer's been trying to advocate making the rich pay more, while the poor and middle class should pay less. This is exactly what the Bush plan does, yet Reimer opposes it anyway. (Then again, he also opposes personal retirement accounts, which would give new opportunities to both the poor and the middle class, so this is not a surprise.)
Could anyone POSSIBLY be a bigger partisan hack?
Rock the Vote's credibility is going further and further down the tubes. It's sad, really.
Rock the Vote still has some credibility? Look at how many people have been able to debunk Hans and call him out on his blatant distortions and manipulations. This organization has no credibility left.
Hans is a smart guy, and I know he is fully aware of the manipulation he is doing. Note how he tried to blame the tax cuts and the war for Social Security's problems (both now and in the future), even though spending on both is totally unrelated to Social Security payroll tax spending. Note how he tried to manipulate people into thinking they'd be better off under the current system, even though $5 trillion in taxes would need to be paid off, and 27% of benefits would be cut.
He is doing this on purpose, and it is because he has an agenda. Rather than being a true voice for the youth, Rock the Vote has selected someone who has actively had a blindly partisan stance on this for years, going back to 2000. Funny how they never mention Hans's history.
You gotta love the absolute ridiculousness of Hans and his friends at the Washington Post.
The biggest point of President Bush's press conference last night was to guarantee that benefits for lower-income individuals will continue to grow at the rate they do under the current system, while those with higher incomes would be shifted to a price-indexing system for calculating benefits, which would lower the rate at which benefits grow, not cut them. The President's plan clearly benefits lower to middle income class workers , not only because of his wage-indexing, but his private accounts allow low-income workers to build a "nest egg" of real assets that is theirs, rather than a bunch of IOU's sitting in a Treasury department filing cabinet.
You would think Hans and the Wash. Post would be enthralled that the Presidents plan clearly benefits the poor more than the rich. I mean, everyone remembers how they were bemoaning the "evil Bush administration" when the CBO release d numbers that the President's tax cuts favored the rich. But now, I guess they feel bad for the rich.
Hans, quit lying to yourself, man. There is no way Social Security can remain solvent while paying out full benefits to everyone, there has to be some sacrifice somewhere. I for one know that the rich would rather see a small reduction in the growth of their benefits rather than have an increase in taxes. The rate of return earned on private accounts could make up for the loss in benefit growth. Overall, SS will be a better deal for everyone.
Its time to set aside partisan politics and the seats that are at stake in 2006 and do what is right for our generation. If a Congressman or Senator has to choose between giving up his/her seat or passing on trillions in unfunded liabilities to America's future, I sure as hell hope they pick the former. If they don't, not only is it a damn shame, its frankly, un-American.
Wow - Hans, seems to me you're pretty much getting raped today...
This author clearly does not understand the demographic crunch that will undermine the solvency of social security AND medicare in the next several decades.
The problem with this slant on the social security crisis is that the underlying demographic crunch is NOT going to simply "go away." As a result, everyone would be better-served by engaging in a real policy debate over the merits of various reform proposals. Instead, the author presents the issue as a choice between (a) reforming social security, and (b) allocating federal funds to "tax cuts and military spending." The author is simply hiding the ball. The actuarial social security deficit is approximately $15 trillion (based on my recollection; I don't have the social security trustees' report in front of me for reference). The recent tax cuts were projected to "cost" approximately $3 trillion. Military spending in Iraq is running about $80 billion annually. When you do the math, social security is its own animal. Let's talk about how to address the demographic issues. If privatization is not a pragmatic alternative, let's discuss more pragmatic alternatives.
Hey you guys,
You might not realize that Pozen's plan does create major cuts relative to current law for middle class folks. Here is what the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities had to say about the idea of progressive price indexing:
It would be desirable to make the Social Security benefit structure somewhat more progressive although doing so creates some political risk for Social Security. But when progressive price indexing is coupled with private accounts, the political risk escalates very substantially.
* Progressive price indexing represents a large benefit cut; it would close 73 percent of Social Security’s 75-year financing gap by itself. Plans that include this proposal rely heavily on benefit reductions to restore solvency, rather than on a balanced mix of benefit reductions and revenue increases, as was done in 1983. As a result, even though the largest benefit reductions under progressive price indexing would fall on those with annual earnings at or above the Social Security payroll tax cap (now $90,000 a year), workers who earn much more modest wages would face quite significant benefit cuts. A medium earner (one who earns $36,000 today) retiring in 2055 would face a 21 percent reduction (relative to the current benefit structure) in his or her Social Security benefits. A worker who earned 60 percent above the average wage — about $59,000 today — would face a 31 percent cut.(These figures are based on the Social Security actuaries’ analysis of the progressive price indexing proposal.)
http://www.cbpp.org/4-26-05socsec.htm
As they point out, there are two ways to fix any problems facing SS: cut benefits, increase revenues, or both. Economically, there is no reason to choose benefit cuts over tax increases, that's just a matter of morals.
In response to the previous poster:
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is a very well established LIBERAL think tank. They've got a partisan agenda, so this needs to be taken into account whenever one looks at their studies. Note that Hans over here frequently cites that source, without ever mentioning its partisan lean. Note how you did the very same thing. This group has an agenda, note that.
That being said, compared to what Social Security PROMISES, progressive price indexing will pay out less money. HOWEVER, if you want to be realistic- and fair- you must take into account that under the current system, anyone retiring after 2041 gets a 27% cut in benefits, automatically. This is combined with significantly higher taxes demanded from 2017 to 2041 to pay off the money that the trust fund will demand.
I refer everyone back to my previous question: is it worth it to get slightly more benefits when you retire if you have to pay significantly higher taxes throughout the course of your lifetime to get them? Is it worth it to get these benefits without a single chance to grow your money through a personal account? Absolutely not.
The Pozen plan, combined with Bush's personal retirement accounts keeps benefits exactly where they are for the low-income people who end up relying solely on Social Security when they retire. For the middle class, benefits will be slightly lower than what Social Security PROMISES (but remember, we just went over that 27% cut), but STILL HIGHER THAN TODAY'S BENEFITS. The benefits for the upper class will grow the slowest, but will ALSO be higher than today's benefits.
There are no "benefit cuts" here. All there is is a slow in the growth of benefits to make the system financially solvent. Comparing this reformed system- one that saves trillions of dollars in money, preventing future tax hikes or deficit spending- to what the current system "PROMISES" but cannot deliver- is a very unfair and unrealistic comparison. This is the comparison that the CBPP makes, because it is a liberal thinktank that has an agenda.
Note that with this indexing change, everyone has the option to get a personal retirement account. If you think your benefits will be too low for your retirement, get a personal retirement account. By any realistic estimate, your PRA will more than make up for any slow in the growth of benefits that occurs.
Also, there is a massive difference between raising taxes or cutting benefits economically. You raise taxes- especially PAYROLL taxes, which 80% of Americans (the lower 80%, mind you) pay more of than income taxes, and you'll be hurting Americans where they least can be hurt- in their pocketbooks. You'll also be discouraging savings, since people will have less money to save. Furthermore, it'll make it EVEN MORE ATTRACTIVE for employers to hire abroad, because higher payroll taxes mean that employers will have to pay out more money to employees and the government. There are MASSIVE ramifications to increasing taxes to solve this problem, and it doesn't take an economic genius to understand it.
That's why the President supports this progressive indexing. Give the super rich the least benefits, give the middle class a moderate benefit, give the poor the most benefits. Give all three the option to go BEYOND those benefits with a personal retirement account. All of this comes with 70% of the problem being solved, significantly reducing the need for tax increases in the future.
The CBPP is flat out wrong on this, and like Hans, is attempting to throw a partisan agenda behind this. And, like Hans, they hide behind the mask of "non-partisanship" to try to keep credibility, when in reality they have none.
I also thought this was humorous. From the "Center for Budget and Policy Priorities":
Plans that include this proposal rely heavily on benefit reductions to restore solvency, rather than on a balanced mix of benefit reductions and revenue increases, as was done in 1983.
Note how they say "revenue increases" instead of "tax increases" in reference to the 1983 tax hike. Wow, talk about using doublespeak. Let's just throw around all the euphemisms we can while we're at it, why don't we? Incredible.
For those of you who don't know, the last time payroll taxes were hiked was in 1983. That's why you pay so much of your money to Social Security. Note how it did not fix the problem. Tax hikes are temporary fixes that lead to more problems in the future, as we see now.
"Revenue increases"...hilarious!
Hans, if you so disdainfully disapprove of the President's plan, what is your alternative? Cutting military spending while our troops are abroad? Raising taxes on our generation as we enter the workforce? Those are at least legitimate ways to help fix Social Security - but you have no basis for criticism if you do not provide an alternative.
Our generation is asking for the CHOICE to save our own money. Hans wants to deny our generation that choice.
Everyone should go to www.SecureOurFuture.org. It's Students for Saving Social Security - they want to give our generation the CHOICE of personal accounts. Hans apparently thinks it's better to tell our generation what to think than to let us decide for ourselves.
Apparently Hans would rather oppose anything Bush suggests than help protect the poor. If NOTHING is done, Social Securty benefits will be cut on EVERYONE, including the poor. Bush has at least said, for starters, let's make sure we protect the poor. How could you oppose that?
Hans, way to voice the true opinions of our generation. Surely the views of the AARP (American Association for RETIRED PERSONS) parallel the beliefs of the UNDER 30 crowd.
You completely missed the boat on the President's speech Thursday night. The President isn't supporting benefit cuts, but cuts in the GROWTH of benefits. Why? Because the SYSTEM CAN'T PAY THEM. He's not "marketing" this idea, but he's FORCED to make it simply because of the demographic problem.
Hans, this isn't "a huge cut in benefits to young people." Doing NOTHING is. Including Personal Accounts as a part of the Social Security system will give us the chance to earn a better rate of return.
DO NOT LISTEN TO HANS. He wants you to believe that there is no problem. Yet the cost of inaction is higher than we can afford.
Doing nothing leads to a THIRTY PERCENT CUT IN BENEFITS. I'd rather take my chances in the stock market (with an 8% real rate of return) than in the current Social Security system (with a 2% real rate of return). I'm not a math major, but I know that eight is bigger than two.
Don't let an over-the-hill blogger claiming to voice the views of OUR generation convince you that there is no problem with the current system. Read the 2005 Report of the Social Security Trustees (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html), and decide for yourself.
Wow, this blog is ridiculous. Isn't RTV supposed to oppose Social Security reform? Are there even any comments here, besides Hans, that oppose reform? Seems like our generation wants personal accounts. From what I hear, that's what all the polls say too.
Wow Hans, the power you must feel of having a million names on your email list. Too bad none care enough to even read what you're writing.
I would like to point out that the Constitutional priority of the Federal Government is to national defense, meaning military spending, so if you'd like to start advocating the spending of taxes on a broken redistribution plan instead of on National Defense I suggest looking for a house in the south of France. My family still has some estate there and I can put in a good word to the locals for you.
When will Hans understand that Social Security can only be saved by raising taxes to a point where everyone ultimately suffers?
Owned Hans, absolutely owned...
Hans, why don't you defend yourself on your own blog? You can't even pretend to defend your prevarications?
Oh don't worry, I'm sure our pal Hans will come out with a giant analysis on Monday, using some more material from liberal thinktanks, leaving out crucial pieces of information, all once again in a pathetic attempt to try to dupe our generation into thinking that there's no problem, and that we would be better off without any change.
The talking point of "most of you would be better off under the current system than the President's reform" may just be the most hilarious talking point Hans has used to date.
Keep it up, Hans; you're only building up the case for reform more and more as you keep on using misleading, misinformed, and totally partisan slanted talking points.
Hans, where you at dawg?
He's probably over at MoveOn.org reading the latest talking points.
Hans man, starting to worry about ya - you gonna show your face, or just admit defeat?
"...even if you do nothing to address Social Security and let it go "bankrupt," benefits for in the future will still be larger for young people today than they are for today's seniors."
This statement is nothing but misleading crap.
They will get more money but is that in "today's" dollars? Just 20 years ago I could buy a gallon of gas for $.75 now it's $2.15 a loaf of bread used to be a nickel an now its two bucks. Yes, the future retrirees will still receive more money but it will not have anywhere near the buying popwer they have today.
In regards to previous anonymous poster's comment:
You're right, it is misleading crap. Furthermore, Hans totally wants us to disregard the massive taxes we're going to have to pay after 2017 to pay off the trust fund. Combine those smaller benefits we get after 2041 with those massive tax hikes, and we'd be raped under the current system.
Hans, your misleading statements will not work on here. Unfortunately for you, some of us are just as familiar, if not more familiar, than you are with this issue.
You're really starting to dissapoint Hans - you gonna stick up for yourself, or have you ran to Canada already?
Balls + Hans = Hell No
Hans is probably checking out the New York Times, to write a column promoting the garbage Paul Krugman just wrote on this- stuff that was debunked a mere two hours after the column came out.
Han's favorite source, the CBPP, was also debunked thoroughly when it comes to their latest "study."
Hans was, no doubt, planning on using those two far-left slanted sources to promote his highly partisan agenda on this issue. Now he's going to have to resort to AARP talking points again.
But you just wait, he'll come out with a post soon, distorting, twisting, and misleading everyone on this issue. Once again, Social Security will be....HANSIFIED!!!
The Social Security Actuaries have determined that middle class workers would have more money in retirement thanks to the Pozen Plan.
Hans and the CBPP conviently talk only about the reduction in benefit growth. They neglect the value of the Personal Accounts. You have to include those to get a correct view of the benefits a retiree receives.
The SSA modeled the Pozen plan and found that everyone, except someone over the wage cap in 2075, does better than they would under current law.
Some folks do much, much better.
I remain aghast that an organization, that purports to represent young people, is so actively against the interest of younger generations. Young folks WANT PRAs.
And it will be Generation X that has to repay the $1.7 trillion owed to the Trust Fund. And that's even before we fix our retirement.
On one hand, you have the Presiden'ts PRA plan. On the other, you have Hans and Orszag that propose cutting benefits on the young and raising the payroll tax by 1/3!
I would like a straight answer from Hans on his next blog: what do you propose we do to fix Social Security? You oppose personal accounts. You oppose progressive price indexing. The only options left are (1) cutting benefits on the poor or (2) increasing payroll taxes. If Hans and the RTV remain opposed to every proposed solution they are going to find themselves backed into a corner, if they are not already. So you want to raise taxes on as right as we enter the work force? Fine, but at least be honest and say it. I'm not a fan of Bush, but at least he's put his cards on the table.
Hans also should answer this: come 2017, without reform, taxes will have to be increased on the working poor to pay off the trust fund. True or false?
Hans, we're not as stupid as you think we are. It's insulting that you think we're buying these lies your trying to spoon feed us. You may be old and out of touch, but we're not babies. Progressive Indexing just slows the rate of INCREASE in benefits for wealthier workers, meaning they still go UP, just not as fast. I thought you were all in favor of taxing the rich anyway? Not giving them as much when they retire is just about the same thing, so why are you so opposed to it now? Oh yeah, because Bush said it. Let's forget about Bush and think about what is the best policy--which is letting us VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to invest our money in the same way rich people do, in bonds and stocks.
Hans doesn't care about the rich receiving less from this system than the poor, even though he has a left wing liberal should be all over this plan, totally in favor of it simply because of its "progressiveness."
Hans is a tax-monger. It's that simple. Hans doesn't care if the rich receive less benefits, Hans doesn't care if the poor benefit the most- all Hans wants to do is increase taxes. It doesn't matter on who, either- his blind support of the current system means that he's got absolutely no problem with taxes being forced to go up after 2017 when the trust fund has to be paid off.
It is appalling how Hans is willing to sell this entire generation out in favor of tax hikes simply because he despises those who can control their own money responsibly. Then again, Hans isn't a member of this generation, so it only makes sense that he try to sell us out- just like the AARP does.
First time here and I can't believe how weak and partisan this analysis was by Hans. If anyone is interested Pozen had another op-ed in the WSJ today explaining his plan. RTV should consider reading it.
"Judging any reform plan relative to scheduled benefits is misguided. The schedule represents the benefits we have promised but do not have the money to deliver. That is why Social Security has a long-term deficit with a present value of $3.8 trillion. If the litmus test of a reform plan is not cutting scheduled benefits for any significant group of workers, then no viable plan to restore Social Security's solvency will pass muster."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006639
http://www.economicswithaface.com/weblog
-Peter
As a 53 year old ex-yuppie, I have to say that reading these comments has really made my day. And it was a pretty good day to begin with. Please keep it up.
wow, what a breath of fresh air.
Every day, I see the major news and networks and think that everyone has lost their minds.
Then i read the blogs like this, and I realize thats not it at all.
People like hans are attempting to put people in the dark, but clearly it aint working.
RTV, Hans, JUST LOOK at this blog.
NOT ONE, I mean not a single response in favor of what you are saying. Are these the tons of the youth that realize how great the current social security system is?
Wake up.
Talking about a great way to scare young people? Hmm what about a great way to trick young people to vote for you? HMMM! Now "Rock The Vote" has that down pat. They know that you won't do your own research so they can tell you whatever they want and you will believe it. If you don't believe this group is partisan and has it's own agenda, see who is selling their gear. Don't want to gamble with your money? Pull it out of social security--that way you have a say and it is less of a gamble then letting someone else decide your life for you.
Rock the vote lied to the public in the past. Why should we fall for your lies about SSI?
*notices the absence of a Draft that Bush was going to have after the election*
First, about myself. I am sixty
year old retiree and will opt for
Social Security in two years.
While I worked I have watched as the payroll tax became the largest burden on low income wage earners.
I remember reaching the maximum
payment in Aug., and seeing a
"raise" in my Sept. paycheck. How many of you fulfill your SS obligation each year?
While we are being entertained by the poltical class (it really isn't partisan) over how to keep Social Security solvent, very little is said about what our government has done with the
money our parents and grandparents contributed during their lifetime.
If you have researched YOURSELVES,
rather than listen to Washington, you would have seen for the past seventy years $12 trillion more was collected than paid out to recipients!
Even today, workers and employers are popped for 7% of their income (SS and Medicare), which is 30% more than is required to meet obligations.
I've researched the history of Social Security and Medicare
and believe both programs can be strengthened and administered
more efficiently, with a reduced
on working Americans.
If you are sincerely interested
in the solvency of this program
I urge you to check my blog. On
it I have presented an alternative
to the current funding method.
If adopted SS will remain solvent,
and every worker would have more
money in their paycheck, which
translates into money to put towards a new home, or a child's
education.
It is named,
"reagansamerica.blogspot.com'
Regards,
Anthony J. Bruno
Cary, NC
Well Mr Bruno, Id rather keep my money thanks. But at least your offering a plan. An alternative.
Wheres your plan Mr. Reimer???
The defense for keeping social security as it is now is to pay for the retiring generation.
But you are told you are saving for your own retirement.
Remove yourself from the ponzi scheme where theorhetically, the low income is pooled in to pay for the retirement of the rich.
Join the fight to have rights over your own income.Over your own life.
www.bureaucrash.com
www.lp.com
Hans sure is right. We shouldn't allow poor, or lower-middle class people the opportunity to leverage the proven long term returns of the stock market. This is clearly risky and should be reserved for the affluent and rich! (Suckers - those rich folk surely don't know how to manage their money!)
Arrrggh. It's somewhat funny. These people advocate changing the 2000+ year old institution of marriage in a heartbeat, but are appalled at any idea of change to our man-made social security program that is clearly not as good as it could be. And these liberals claim to be progressive? open minded? looking out for our interests? Riiiiggghht.
Hans - you don't have a clue about what young people want. You're a middle aged man trying to push your selfish agenda under the guise of being a voice of young voters.
well i disagree with the last posters assertions on marriage, but i will digress as its unrelated to the thread.
How about the fact that part of the push in this agenda is the anti wealth viewpoint. yet they ignore that the poor live shorter lives, and most dont even see that money. Black males live to a life averaging just over 55 years. Oops.
Didnt get to retirement age huh?
Well dont worry. Uncle sam will keep it then.
Why Bother to Vote?
[1] To keep from losing freedoms. Freedoms you may not feel now. But, you will feel the pain when they are lost. You will also not be throwing away everything that thousands of Canadians gave up their lives for during three or more wars. Don’t let it happen.
[2] To keep your healthcare and pensions. Canada is rich in natural wealth and so, can afford to provide us with life enhancing benefits. Corporations want that wealth to be added to their profits bottom line. They financially support conservative and right leaning political parties to do that for them. Don’t let it happen.
[3] Because it’s so Easy. You just walk in. Check your name and address on the list. Mark your ballot and drop it into the box.
Just twenty minutes so you can say you did your part to save our world famous Health care and Pensions and protect our most precious freedoms.
I thought I would never get ’old’. Well everybody does and if health care doesn’t crash and burn, You will get there too someday. I do not feel old. Am still doing things I did when I was 39.
The reason Health care is so important is that it may be why I feel so young at 65. Thankfully, because our government pensions are healthy and generous, I can really enjoy life rather than be forced to dumpster dive..
Dumpster diving may seem like fun for some people, but I would rather avoid it. Please do vote OK? It’s for your gain as well as mine.
TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca
Social Security is the worst investment any of us have been Forced to participate in!...It is a pay more get less government plan, that is on it's last lame leg! Why wouldn't we be devoted to reforming Social Security Reform? Our future generations deserve a better retirement than what many of our retired Americans are forced to live on today with Social Security!...
"When it comes to dividing up the budget, they want to spend the money on other things: tax cuts and the military, in particular."
Money is not spent on tax cuts. Tax cuts allow people who pay taxes to keep some of their money. Look at the direction of the money flow. It flows from taxpayers to the government and then out via government spending. It is inaccurate to describe tax cuts as a spending item.
If you pay taxes, do you not also want tax cuts? Also, because we benefit from the security of a stong military, I am in favor of spending money to keep our country save and strong.
Post a Comment
<< Home