A Pew Poll from the week of the President's inauguration in January (PDF) has some interesting results on Social Security and people age 18-29.
Rather than recite them, I'll narrate. Read along on Page 7 (Table C) of the document. I missed this poll at the time, but it is worth reviewing. It confirms the results from our own poll, which supporters of privatization have attacked vociferously and fecklessly.
So, according to the Pew Poll: Young people are are actually somewhat more optimistic about the future of Social Security than people age 30-44, but quite pessimistic when compared with people age 45-64.
They are somewhat more opposed to raising the payroll tax rate than the rest of the population, but still strongly in favor of raising the salary cap on Social Security taxes (it stops at $90,000 today). They are overwhelming opposed to giving people lower benefits than promised.
They are initially split on replacing Social Security with private accounts when the question is worded in a manner, as this one is, that makes it clear that there are upsides and downsides to it.
But a large portion of the group that would initially favor private accounts drops off when they learn that it would require large government borrowing, leaving the private accounts proposal with support from less than a third of the youth demographic.
They don't think the President has anything close to a mandate for his ideas.
Rather than recite them, I'll narrate. Read along on Page 7 (Table C) of the document. I missed this poll at the time, but it is worth reviewing. It confirms the results from our own poll, which supporters of privatization have attacked vociferously and fecklessly.
So, according to the Pew Poll: Young people are are actually somewhat more optimistic about the future of Social Security than people age 30-44, but quite pessimistic when compared with people age 45-64.
They are somewhat more opposed to raising the payroll tax rate than the rest of the population, but still strongly in favor of raising the salary cap on Social Security taxes (it stops at $90,000 today). They are overwhelming opposed to giving people lower benefits than promised.
They are initially split on replacing Social Security with private accounts when the question is worded in a manner, as this one is, that makes it clear that there are upsides and downsides to it.
But a large portion of the group that would initially favor private accounts drops off when they learn that it would require large government borrowing, leaving the private accounts proposal with support from less than a third of the youth demographic.
They don't think the President has anything close to a mandate for his ideas.
posted by Hans Riemer at 8:34 PM
8 Comments:
They not of what they speak. As these students get older, they (Not all of them) will slowly realize how moronic some of there arguments were as I did after graduate school. The ones that do not will go on to work for RTV.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
:)
For the billionth time, talking about the results of some rigged and biased poll is entirely uninteresting. Why don't you try learning how the system really works, so you can understand how bad the system is for young americans and how it's going to bankrupt the govt soon.
www.socialslavery.com
I'm sorry but I'm 26, an independent and largely opposed to Bush's plans for SS.
As far as I know, and this is from watching unbiased reports on channels other than CNN and FoxNews, the entire privatization aspect does absolutely nothing in terms of fixing the solvency problem. And is does put the country in massive debt, how big depends on how the economy does. If it does well, the debt will be big but nothing unprecedented. But if the economy falters, the debt will be in the trillions, totally catastrophic.
So, I ask, what is the point of private accounts? To be the only reason would be to serve as a preemptive strike against the entire Social Security system. (Jeez, Bush sure loves those preemptive strikes, doesn't he?) Get younger people used to doing without it so one day you can kill the entire program without too much uproar.
It's all about ideology, not what's good for America. Let's stomp on FDR's grave, after all, those in charge now will be dead before the real havoc ensues.
And God forbid we talk about the government program that's really in crisis...Medicare.
But a large portion of the group that would initially favor private accounts drops off when they learn that it would require large government borrowing, leaving the private accounts proposal with support from less than a third of the youth demographic.
I see. I'm sure they would just as easily oppose Social Security, too, when they found out that it will require "large government borrowing" after 2017.
The Hans Reimer plan for Social Security once again runs into the wall that Hans constantly runs into: the wall of hypocrisy and double standard.
I'm sorry but I'm 26, an independent and largely opposed to Bush's plans for SS.
As far as I know, and this is from watching unbiased reports on channels other than CNN and FoxNews, the entire privatization aspect does absolutely nothing in terms of fixing the solvency problem.
Start reading, and stop watching.
If you cannot read various research papers and analyses of the various plans out there, you do not belong in this debate. Television cannot explain Social Security in detail- if it did, you would have known that the current system requires either $4.7 trillion of federal deficit spending, tax hikes, or benefit cuts from 2017-2041.
They are overwhelming opposed to giving people lower benefits than promised.
I wonder what they'd think after it was shown to them that the current system mandates a 27% cut after 2041.
QUOTE:
I'm sorry but I'm 26, an independent and largely opposed to Bush's plans for SS.
As far as I know, and this is from watching unbiased reports on channels other than CNN and FoxNews, the entire privatization aspect does absolutely nothing in terms of fixing the solvency problem. And is does put the country in massive debt, how big depends on how the economy does. If it does well, the debt will be big but nothing unprecedented. But if the economy falters, the debt will be in the trillions, totally catastrophic.
/QUOTE:
Hi, I'm glad you asked and hope I can help clarify this for you if you're honestly trying to learn more. You really should check out www.socialslavery.com for a good summary and links with more detailed information in order to understand the problem SS currently has but I'll try to address your questions here. First of all, Bush hasn't put a detailed enough plan out there to really talk about it thoroughly but the general idea is that people would have the option of diverting some of their SS tax money into actual equity accounts instead of what they are forced to do now as detailed on socialslavery.com. Since bush probably won't raise taxes or cut benefits for those who choose to remain in the system the effect of this would be twofold. We'd have less payroll tax revenue raised which would mean that the general budget would have to cover the shortfall somehow. On the other hand, the social security system would assume less future liability thus making it more financially sound and people who had opted to invest in equity would have ownership of a real asset. In the short term, we'd have to make up for the general budgetary shortfall by raising general taxes, cutting spending or (most likely) a combination of inflation and borrowing by the U.S. treasury. But if you read socialslavery.com, you'd understand that to a large extent, the U.S. treasury would just be paying back money it has been borrowing from the SS system's past surpluses so that our govt could pay for other general govt programs like the war in iraq, farm subsidies, foreign aid and all kinds of pork barrel bs. The treasury already is severely in debt, congress just hasn't been being honest about the amount by keeping the debt the treasury owes to the social slavery system "off-budget". In fact, it actually has the sack to call this debt an asset by referring to it as a 'trust fund'.
QUOTE:
So, I ask, what is the point of private accounts? To be the only reason would be to serve as a preemptive strike against the entire Social Security system. (Jeez, Bush sure loves those preemptive strikes, doesn't he?) Get younger people used to doing without it so one day you can kill the entire program without too much uproar.
/QUOTE:
By putting people's money in government controlled 'private' accounts that have real equities, people's money would actually be invested in real assets instead of the current paradigm where it just gets borrowed by congress to pay for their big government overspending.
But lest you think it my opinion that Bush's plan is a good idea, the reason it isn't is that it actually could keep the program solvent and that would be a bad thing. Bush's plan not only allows the government to continue taking and controlling 13% of your income, it would allow the government to control our equity markets by controlling what stocks we can invest in, what brokerages we can invest with, and voting rights for our corporations. Hello fascism.
The real solution is to just insist that payroll taxes are not raised on anyone so that the system doesn't assume any more liabilities. In addition and even better, if young people were just allowed to opt out, forgoing future 'benefits', the system would be relieved of a great deal of it's liabilities to future generations and young people would be able to invest for themselves. And we'd be forced to acknowledge the enormity of our debt problem now rather than later, which would be great for future generations.
QUOTE:
It's all about ideology, not what's good for America. Let's stomp on FDR's grave, after all, those in charge now will be dead before the real havoc ensues.
/QUOTE:
Right, FDR's grave should be stomped silly for creating such a horrible system. Too bad fascists like Bush and Socialists like Reamer, Kerry, and the Democrats are too ideological to be honest about that.
QUOTE:
And God forbid we talk about the government program that's really in crisis...Medicare.
/QUOTE:
I agree, that's in real trouble too and that's not even counting Bush's prescription drug program.
I'm inclined to agree that all polls are saying different things. It's difficult to tell what to believe. But thanks for the information! I actually do believe that we should be looking for more solutions to SS. Hopefully there will be some options on the table soon!
Post a Comment
<< Home