Posted on 08/29/2004 1:01:48 PM PDT by FairOpinion
How would President Kerry deal with Social Security's looming challenge of making good on its promises when revenue income falls short of benefit outgo?
Kerry's plan, as outlined on his Web site, seems straightforward, but is short on detail except in one troubling respect.
This assertion comes with the qualification that President Kerry “will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.”
That statement is fraught with dire implications for future retirees with substantial income from sources besides Social Security. If you have been forced to pay Social Security taxes all your life, it's outrageous to contemplate a system disallowing any return whatsoever on money paid into Social Security over a lifetime.
...the benefit based on these assumptions would have to be trimmed by about 80 percent. Even if you're lucky enough to have a decent private pension and a respectable nest egg, this still would be a horrific reduction in prospective retirement income for most who might be affected.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
bump
None of Kerrys plans will bear scrutiny.Not his health plan this plan or the ones he has that are kept "secret".
At least they're giving up the fiction that Social Security is anything more than a government-run Ponzi Scheme. "Return on money paid in?" That money was long gone decades before your retirement.
And what about the money the person's employer/s paid in during that person's working life? This makes me sick.
Yes. Remember when Bill Clinton talked about soaking the rich? When pressed to define "rich," Clinton's people finally admitted people earning more than $30,000 per year were rich.
Kerry said that the Social Security is not in trouble.
(paraphrase)
"from those according to their means... to those according to their needs"
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Karl Marx
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"
--- Hillary Clinton, June 28, 2004
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable
This plan basically says "Don't succeed and don't save or we will punish you." This absolutely would discourage ambition as well as saving.
Contrast this with Bush's approach:
Key idea for Bush agenda: Ownership society (Tax cuts, changes in social security )
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1202493/posts
"During the next four years, we'll help more citizens to own their health plan, to own a piece of their retirement, to own their own home or their own small businesses," Bush told supporters at a Washington fund-raiser last month. "We'll usher in a new era of ownership in America, with an agenda to help all our citizens save and build and invest, so every person owns a part of the American dream."
* Making previous tax cuts permanent instead of allowing them to expire at various points over the next seven years.
* Allowing workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes to new individual retirement accounts over which they control the choice of investments.
Bush campaign know about this?
If they are questining sKerry it is a good thing.
"...future retirees with substantial income..."
I'd like to see JFK define "substantial income." I'm sure it's a moving target depending on which pressure group one belongs to.
WASP males such as myself = anything. We're a source for others.
Kept men like JFK = No ceiling.
Everyone else = we know how much you need, put up and shut up.
And the minute he does it, the supremes will rule that ALL SS recieps must be held to same standard. How will all of skerry's bb voters feel about that.
their so stupid they don't even have a clue as to where money comes from.
They're kept secret for our own good. But, today on Fox, the subtitles showed Kerry lamenting the fact that the US is beholden to foreign oil interests for its energy needs. Hellooooo... ANWAR? How can anyone listen to the illogical and contradictory Kerry BS?
On energy, Kerry must have some "other" secret plan. It isn't Yucca, so it can't be nuclear (although that is the French way). Is it coal? (I like that idea, but when you get down to it, I'm sure its way to dirty for JF'nK)
Ohhh, I know--its wind... hot-air power!
What disturbs me about isolating these funds from the general ledger is:
just what happens to that big pot of money?
Is is invested in something?
If so, what?
So the federal government becomes a major shareholder in GM?
Or some other stock?
Is that what we want?
Or does it just sit in t-bills?
Or what?
Social security run by the feds was a bad idea, period.
But in the meantime, too many have become dependent on it.
It should be phased out and ultimately eliminated.
Or methane from Michael Moore's HUGH posterior.
I don't think you understood my post. The article only accounts for what I pay into SS during my lifetime, it does not take into account the equal portions paid by my employer during my working years. As if that doesn't count.
And .. more of the typical democrat's messes.
The democrats are the ones who placed the SS funds into the general fund. Now that those funds have been diluted with all their spending .. they're starting to whine that it's all Bush's fault. Good grief!
He's a newbie -- watch out.
And if you're self-employed, you pay the whole 15.3% yourself.
"You" are ALWAYS paying the whole 15.3% yourself.
.
Perhaps I should have said "It's much more obvious when you're actually writing the check for the whole amount yourself."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.