Have Faith in Social Security? Then Have I Got a Deal for You!

Human Events Online ^ | March 28, 2005 | Mac Johnson

[kevkrom]

Tax reform and Social Security ping!

This guy has the right approach to convincing folks that private accounts are superior to Social Security -- given all of the facts and an unfetered option on which way to go, who would ever choose the latter?

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.

[qam1]

Xer Ping

Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effect Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.

Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.

[qam1]

Sorry for the double Ping

[expat_panama]

priceless

[elmer fudd]

While investment accounts will be a big improvement over SS as it exists now, there will be plenty of trouble down the road regardless. Whether the money comes out of the economy in the form of payroll taxes or by selling off stocks or pocketing dividends, the fact remains that 50 years from now there will be more old folks who aren't producing wealth and less young folks who are.

No matter how you allocate the wealth it boils down to a less productive economy and that spells trouble. The simple fact is that we need more kids. We're making up the deficit right now by bringing in immigrants, but who's to say that those immigrants will feel obligated to support a bunch of elderly Americans without kids of their own when it comes time for us to retire?

[kevkrom]

Whether the money comes out of the economy in the form of payroll taxes or by selling off stocks or pocketing dividends, the fact remains that 50 years from now there will be more old folks who aren't producing wealth and less young folks who are. No matter how you allocate the wealth it boils down to a less productive economy and that spells trouble.

I don't follow your reasoning. The big problem with the current system isn't that older folks aren't producing wealth, it's that younger people are being hindered from accumulating wealth because they're taxed to transfer money to older folks.

Also, money in private investment accounts is productive -- it is used to fund economic growth via infrastructure, and when cashed in and spent, also encourages growth, via sales.

[NittanyLion]

Absolutely hilarious article. And so true...

[Xenalyte]

The simple fact is that we need more kids.

And people like me aren't having any, because we can't afford 'em, because we're taxed all to hell.

[elmer fudd]

I'm just pointing out that the elderly will need to be supported regardless of where the money comes from and that the more elderly and less young people you have the less productive your economy will be. Social security is a terrible retirement system, but the main problem that faces it would still be a problem for us even if SS were entirely replaced by private accounts. When you've got one worker out of every three working to support an older person that's an immense drain on the economy.

Restructuring social security is like refinancing your debt. It can really help, but the underlying problem is the debt itself. In the case of SS the underlying problem is that we're living longer, using much more healthcare and we're not having enough kids to support us.

[kevkrom]

I'm still not seeing how you reach those conclusions. The point of private accounts is that younger workers won't be supporting retirees -- retirees will be supporting themselves with their own savings and investment.

Now, there'll be about a full generation's worth of transition, which may be what you're referring to, but once that is complete, the long-term effects are to free younger workers from the burden of having to support the aging class.

[Army Air Corps]

Isn't that the bloody truth! The only folks who can afford loads of kids are the folks who our tax dollars subsidise. Sure, wealthy folks can have scores of kids, but few wealthy folks have loads of kids.

[ancient_geezer]

A Taxreform bump for you all.

If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:

H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:

• http://www.fairtax.org,
• http://www.myfairtax.org/,
• http://www.salestax.org,
• http://www.geocities.com/cmcofer/ftax.html,
• http://pafairtax.org/calc.php

[freedomfiter2]

Isn't that the bloody truth! The only folks who can afford loads of kids are the folks who our tax dollars subsidise. Sure, wealthy folks can have scores of kids, but few wealthy folks have loads of kids.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have 9 children and make less than $30,000/year. No, I don't take food stamps, welfare or even sponge off my neighbors to educate my kids. Sure it means no TV time as living cheap takes time and effort, but it's not impossible. Besides, rich people are too busy playing with their toys to raise large families. We're raising the next generation of leaders.

[elmer fudd]

Look at it this way. Whether the money comes out of a mutual fund or the general fund, we'll still have to pay one worker in three to take care of a senior citizen. That guy who's working in the nursing home or the therapist or the meals on wheels guy are going to represent over 33% of our economy. That means that there is less labor to go around for the rest of the workforce.

To a large extent a countries wealth is dependent on it's ability to either grow, mine, manufacture or trade goods and intellectual property. These are the things that bring new wealth into a country. Taking care of retirees does not. It has to be done of course, but the more retirees and the fewer workers we have the more negative impact it will have on our economy and our standing in the world.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

In the case of SS the underlying problem is that we're living longer, using much more healthcare and we're not having enough kids to support us.

I well understand your point but that is simply the thing the pols want you to believe. The underlying problem is that the pols have spent all the money that had been "surplus" through all these years. The more we adjust the system to maintain the surplus, you know "To fix SS unitl 20??.", by raising taxes, lowering benefits, or increasing the retirement age, simply exacerbates the problem by giving the pols more "surplus" money to spend. It will never end because the money will never be there.

[Army Air Corps]

Wow! Nine children on less then $30,000 per annum! Just HOW do do you do that? You do know, that you are the exception to the general rule, don't you?

[freedomfiter2]

Yes it's not average but most of our friends have 6 or more children(including 4 families within 3 miles that have 8 or 9). It's worth doing if only to drive libs crazy cause they can't recruit fast enough to keep up. Also, I'm not saying that it's easy.

[Army Air Corps]

Obviously, it is not easy. I am the product of a large family. My grandmother was one of nearly a dozen children. They made it because her parents had a good-sized home and many of their kids stayed at home and contributed to the household until they married and left home.