To the victors go the spoils
I don't know if anyone reads the comments section on this blog. If you do, you'll notice that we've been targeted by some Angry Young Men who are very unhappy about how much influence we have with the generation. I guess when you have a million people on your email list, you get some enemies, too. On second thought---when it comes to Social Security, you guys are your own worst enemies.
Back to the real world. Inside the halls of Congress today, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee---as thousands of protesters rallied against privatization outside (drama!)---a guy named Peter Orszag (yay!) told those Senators how and why to fix Social Security without privatization.
One of his suggestions: boost Social Security benefits with money from the special tax that rich kids pay when they inherit more than $7 million from their parents. This is the so-called Estate Tax. Congress is trying to get rid of it.
Orszag's proposal would reform the estate tax and then dedicate the money to Social Security instead of the general fund, adding $1 trillion to Social Security over the next 75 years.
According to Orszag: "For a 20-year-old medium-earning worker today, it could mean avoiding $1,500 per year in benefit reductions."
That's you. That's your $1,500 per year. Your $15,000 per decade.
Obviously, that money would come on top of the hundreds of thousands that you will already receive from Social Security, benefits that aren't going anywhere because they will be paid for by future workers paying the current tax rate. And, as we are always quick to point out, even if we do nothing, benefits will be a lot larger for you than they are for people today.
So! Who's gonna get that paper?
Back to the real world. Inside the halls of Congress today, at a hearing of the Senate Finance Committee---as thousands of protesters rallied against privatization outside (drama!)---a guy named Peter Orszag (yay!) told those Senators how and why to fix Social Security without privatization.
One of his suggestions: boost Social Security benefits with money from the special tax that rich kids pay when they inherit more than $7 million from their parents. This is the so-called Estate Tax. Congress is trying to get rid of it.
Orszag's proposal would reform the estate tax and then dedicate the money to Social Security instead of the general fund, adding $1 trillion to Social Security over the next 75 years.
According to Orszag: "For a 20-year-old medium-earning worker today, it could mean avoiding $1,500 per year in benefit reductions."
That's you. That's your $1,500 per year. Your $15,000 per decade.
Obviously, that money would come on top of the hundreds of thousands that you will already receive from Social Security, benefits that aren't going anywhere because they will be paid for by future workers paying the current tax rate. And, as we are always quick to point out, even if we do nothing, benefits will be a lot larger for you than they are for people today.
So! Who's gonna get that paper?
posted by Hans Riemer at 5:34 PM
18 Comments:
Unbelievable. The evil rich are targeted again. What a great idea. Lets tax the rich when they die despite the fact that they paid taxes on every dollar that they earned already. Who cares, they're dead, right.
This is such B.S. Before you start salavating, put yourself in the scenario of a parent who has created a business and took all the risks involved to maintain and succeed in this business. In most cases, risks are taken to provide for a family and make a better life for that family. Your kids grow up and you want to leave your business to your children, guess what your business is worth 7 million dollars. Uncle Sam doesn't care that it's a business, they are going to tax you for half of what you are worth, not on how much cash you have. Your children have to come up with 3.5 million dollars cash to satisfy the gov't. We are not talking about chump change. You don't have own a large business for it to be worth 7 million dollars.
If I create a business legally in this country and pay my fair share of taxes all my life, why should I not be allowed to leave what I have earned to my family so that they don't have to struggle as much as I did. The estate tax is another example of liberals digging into our pockets for their social schemes even when our pockets are 6 feet under.
I love the resentment in Hans's words towards the rich kids. Without the rich creating jobs in this country, no one would have the standard of life they have now. Talk to the owner of your organization Hans about the estate tax, I'm sure you don't share the same level of resentment for him/her or they're kids as you do for the easy to hate rich that you don't know.
Keeping spreading your propaganda Hans. I don't think your message is getting too far. Just like Micheal Moore and his little propaganda experiment, your little blog will end up inspiring more people that oppose your idea than support it.
The estate tax is economically, the worst possible kind of tax. Even if you want to solve the Social Security problem through taxes, it's the worst tax to do it with.
Why can't we make Social Security voluntary? You want it, fine, you can have it. I don't want it. Let me out. Why shouldn't it be my choice?
Finally, hypocracy exposed. The biggest whinny baby over Social Security reform, Dem minority leader Harry Reid, can't hide from his own legislation he tried to have passed. Read the hypocracy for yourself.
MR. RUSSERT: Private accounts for Social Security--the president has made that a priority of his domestic agenda. Will you work with him in privatizing part of Social Security?
SEN. REID: Tim, I can remember as a little boy my widowed grandmother with eight children. She lived alone, but she felt independent because she got every month her old age pension check. That's what this is all about. The most successful social program in the history of the world is being hijacked by Wall Street. Yes, Social Security is a good program. And if the president has some ideas about trying to improve it, I'll talk to him, and we as Democrats will, but we are not going to let Wall Street hijack Social Security. It won't happen. They are trying to destroy Social Security.
---------
Wow, sounds like Harry Reid really loves Social Security, but wait a minute what was that bill he tried to pass in 1983 when all elected officials were forced into the social security system:
Reid’s bill would have kept all federal employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 1984, such as the president, elected officials, political appointees and judges, from participating in Social Security, according to a Republican summary of the bill, H.R. 3589, introduced in July 1983.
-------
I guess Social Security is good for us peasants, but not for the almighty superior politicians. Give me a break. Dems are playing polictics with our future. Who could possibly believe these people have our best interests in mind. Where do you think their pension was invested before politicians were forced into SS? No other than the evil stock market. Boy, Harry Reid sure came kicking and screaming into the best Social Program the world has ever seen.
What a crock.
Facts of life:
1) I never worked for a business that was run by a poor person.
2) Most farms would fall into that 7 million dollar category
3) Many minority businesses would fall into that 7 million dollar category
4) Hans needs to step out into the 'real world' for a while before making ridiculous claims
Hans, in your manic obsession to promote the AARP's anti-Social Security reform agenda, you're committing the very sin that you accuse the rest of us of doing. Allow me to quote you in this very blog entry:
On second thought---when it comes to Social Security, you guys are your own worst enemies.
Yes, that quote makes perfect sense- when applied Rock the Vote selling this generation out for a blindly partisan AARP/liberal left agenda.
Look, I don't support repealing the estate tax. I am ALL FOR bringing back the estate tax, and perhaps even increasing it on those who leave behind multi-million dollar estates. In fact, I've railed against the repeal of the estate tax for years now.
But let us face reality, Hans. Keeping the estate tax saves $50 billion a year (this is according to the Democratic Party, mind you). Social Security costs many times more than that per year, and even the deficits that begin after 2017 will overrun that $50 billion a year within 2-3 years. Bringing back the estate tax, and even increasing it, does not solve Social Security's problems.
I have seen Orszag's plan. Do you know what his plan also entails? That benefits be cut for those who are in the middle and upper classes. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm thinking Rock the Vote is supposed to represent the needs of the collegiate and 18-34 crowd. Most of us happen to be in college and well on our way to a nice solid career. Most of us will wind up in the middle class.
And it is that very middle class that is going to get a cut in benefits, while eventually having to pay higher taxes for them. The poor, of course, will get what they're promised now, but the rest of us are absolutely shafted. That's not fair for a middle class that doesn't get anywhere near as much aid as the poor, and can't afford to live luxuriously like the upper class does.
Hans, you and Rock the Vote have sold this generation out. I am not an "angry young man," I'm a "concerned young man." The middle class in this country pays entirely too much in taxes, and we have both President Bush to blame for that (for cutting taxes too much for the rich) and we have the likes of you, Rock the Vote, AARP, and the Democratic Party for refusing to fix Social Security and give us all an opportunity which we do not have right now. We have the likes of you and those groups for continuing to raise taxes- 20+ times in its history- on Social Security, all for lower and lower yields on those benefits. We're paying into a system that pays less and less to us every day when you compare it to how much we pay in. People like you support this system. People like you are to blame for opposing reform.
Government employees have, for over 10 years, benefitted from the Thrift Savings Plan. They are better off than the rest of us ordinary citizens are for it. Instead of extending this opportunity to those of us who want it, the likes of you promote a failed status quo.
That, Hans, is a disgrace. At least be bi-partisan and point out the possible solutions WITHOUT having an agenda. You and Rock the Vote clearly do, and you're selling out our generation for it.
After yesterday's congressional hearing it looks like both sides might start to work together on SS solutions now:
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/042705/gop.html
There's a lot of interesting and substantive dialogue in the comments, such as a recent post by a reader who supports the estate tax but disagrees on Social Security. I think Hans is engaging with them substantively. But there's also a lot of angry, disgusting crap from uninformed people who only want to write attacks and slogans, and they deserve the title Angry Young Men.
I'm the guy who wrote the thing about supporting the estate tax and still supporting the President's Social Security plan; I'm glad you liked my post.
However, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that Hans is engaging with anyone substantively here. Hans is presenting a one-sided view of this entire issue, along with Rock the Vote as a whole. It is disturbing, because this issue directly affects the future financial situation of every single person in our generation.
Hans is presenting a blindly partisan agenda that can only be paralled by some of the very people we have on both sides of the aisle in Congress. Hans isn't doing anything to forward this debate, nor is he doing anything to properly inform our generation about the true situation Social Security faces. All he is presenting is a one-sided solution set that includes tax increases, benefit cuts, and benefit delays.
If Hans wanted to truly engage people substantively here, and if Hans really cared about this generation's future instead of his own partisan agenda, he would present both sides' solutions equally, instead of automatically railing against one from the start. He should also show some maturity and class, and stop calling people out who he disagrees with, like he did in this post.
Hans seems to have an anger management problem, and he also is blindly partisan. If this is the best Rock the Vote can do, this organization is doing little to benefit this generation. Both sides have their views as with any issues- it just so happens that the best solution for our generation this time is personal retirement accounts and Social Security reform. Nothing Hans can offer can even come close to that, and this is coming from someone who once actively opposed Social Security reform, and later changed his mind after actively researching it.
The most unfortunate thing of all in all of this is that many people will take the statements of people like Hans as the truth, since they read it in Rock the Vote's blog. And so the misleading of our generation continues, all in the name of partisan politics.
One more reason for all you students to check out the new group Students for Saving Social Security www.secureourfuture.org.
Non-partisan, grass-roots network across college campuses pushing for personal accounts - we're taking this all the way baby, so you better jump on board.
One question for all who read this. If there are a "million" RTV members who care about RTV's narrow partisan view, why aren't they writing into this blog to defend it? Let the youth speak for themselves and stop putting words in their mouth.
I also find it offensive of Hans to refer to proponents of reform as 'angry young men.' I mean Hans, I don't call you a 'smug old bastard'? Why the name calling?
The reason why the blog isn't flooded with Dems is that Suck The Vote is going the way of Air America.
The question shouldn't be "why does he resort to name calling"; it should be "why isn't he being politically correct with his name calling?"
Mr. Eurotrash (uh oh now I'm name calling), you're not being very sensitive to the diversity of others when you characterize them as "angry young men". You should be calling them mood-challenged opressors-to-be.
I think the name calling is a desperation move by someone who is losing a debate (of sorts). "Angry Young Men" was there any reason to add the adjective young to that? I don't think so. I mean "Angry Men" that may have some merit, but "Angry Young Men"--come on. This guy is clearly in favor of Age Discrimination. Even the premise of his blog is testimony of that.
Um. The Orszag-Diamond Social Security plan has major tax increases that will hammer us generation xers. They don't even start increasing the payroll tax till after the Boomers have retired.
Basically, Orszag-Diamond raises taxes on us and then cut our benefits. Read their plan at brookings.org.
And why in the world isn't Rock the Vote screaming about the Trust Fund? It will be US who has to pay back the dang thing. Our taxes will have to increase to just repay the Trust Fund, much less make Social Security solvent!
A friend passed this to me. It has information regarding this Trust Fund that the previous poster mentions.
Trust Fund FAQ
If all the income is invested, how do benefits get paid each month?
Money to cover expenditures (mainly benefit payments) from the trust funds comes from the redemption or sale of securities held by the trust funds. When "special issue" securities are redeemed, interest is paid. In fact, the amount of special issues redeemed is just enough so that this amount plus the corresponding interest covers the expenditure.
I find this amusing in one of the responses to another question:
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Ha. Ha.
From the Imperial Federal Government iteself: What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?
Now check out how much of our money is in IOUs, to be re-extracted from us later in the form of extra taxes.
1.68 TRILLION dollars has been siphoned away from the Social Security non-Trust Fund so that our *wonderful* purchased politicians can spend it without the herd that is called the populace noticing that they were hit with a tax increase.
And we will be expected to pay that tax AGAIN, some day.
Hell is expanding, one Demican/Republicrat at a time.
Wait a second - that whole "Angry Young Men" thing just kinda ticked me off.
There ARE a quite a few of us females that don't agree with you Hans.
Hans, The crafty talk-show host who plays devil's advocate to enrage some and amuse others, but always generate response. Way to go pal.
To simplify matters; When you vote right....Republican, You vote to have more of the countrie's generated wealth tacked on to corporatre profit bottom lines.
When you vote left.....Democrat, you vote to have some of the national wealth set aside for social security and assisted medical care.
When you are young, you think you will never get old. What a pity.
I am older now, and even though there are scandal problems with our government in Canada now, I am living like a king, without a worry, because our two, count them...two pensions are in excellent shape.
You can enjoy similsr social safeguards by voting to the left. Later, when the programs are in place and you think the Democrats are spending too much money, you can vote Republican for a term to tighten up the purse strings.
They do not seem to be doing that very well just now though.
In any case, be sure to vote, and vote left for those social programs that will matter like life and death when you need them.
TonyGuitar at BendGovt.blog.ca or BendGovernment.blogspot.com
The key is to not vote for the lesser of two evils. You do have a choice. Vote libertarian.
Want to keep the money you earn, without bringing god and national morality into it? Vote Libertarian.
Want to be able to live your life as you see fit, without being forced into a life of indoctrination and spending a 3rd of your life to pay your taxes?
Vote Libertarian.
www.lp.org
www.bureaucrash.com
Post a Comment
<< Home