..."Nice work, little buddy" 
..."Thanks, chief"
Posted on 04/02/2005 7:47:17 AM PST by nj26
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham makes no apology for elbowing his way to the front of the Social Security debate, arguing for significant tax increases and benefit cuts to salvage a program whose long-term solvency, he says, requires nothing less.
Graham's plan would raise Social Security taxes for high-income earners, and reduce their eventual retirement benefits. It would hold low-income Americans harmless.
Workers now pay a 6.2 percent tax (matched by their employers) on their first $90,000 in annual wages. Graham would raise that cap to $160,000, costing high-wage earners an extra $4,340 a year. They should accept the burden, he says, "with the whole idea that you're helping people less fortunate than you."
Increases in Social Security's retirement benefits, meanwhile, have long been tied to wages, which rise faster than prices. Graham would leave that system intact for people earning less than $30,000 a year. Higher-income retirees would have growth in benefits tied to inflation, which would shrink senior citizens' checks by billions of dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Graham has grown in office (into a RINO moron).
Graham and McCain, perfect together.
Bye Bye Lindsay Graham - you are an idiot. Hopefully good S. Carolinians will send your sorry ass packing next election.
..."Nice work, little buddy" ..."Thanks, chief"
There is no way to save a Panzi scheme.
"They should accept the burden, he says, "with the whole idea that you're helping people less fortunate than you."
I think Mr. Lindsey should be taxed at 100% and just accept the burden, and be glad that he is helping the less fortunate.
Have they not seen what's going on in France & Germany? How can so many smart people ignore all of the evidence that tells us what works and what doesn't? Must be public-school educated. Perhaps too many of them are addicted to special interest money. We deserve better. sigh.
Social Security is not a retirement program. It is welfare redistribution from younger workers to the elderly. That is all it is. No one "pays into" anything.
Why not support faith based charities, then? Why not allow people the free will to decide rather than have their will dictated to them?
The left always finds a pretty name to put on a vile activity.
This is another example of class warfare. What he really means is "We will take your goods and give them to others who haven't earned them, and you will just have to make your bricks without straw."
Mr. Graham says that bumping the cap to a higher level allows those folks at that level to pay in order to help people less fortunate than themselves.
Mr. Graham, that is charity, sir, and I'll thank you to mind your own business rather than intrude into my choices of charitable giving.
Any one working for the government is already allowed privatized Social Security : School teachers, government clerks, senators and congressman......
It's good enough for them, but not the peasants who pay the taxes.
That's $8,680 per year for the self employed. He doesn't want me to "help" someone less unfortunate; he wants me to adopt one.
If he just came out of the closet, he wouldn't be forced into this little dance with extortion.
LINDSAY! NOBODY CARES IF YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL! WE DIDN'T ELECT YOU! BUT YOU ARE STICKING IT TO THOSE OF US WHO WORKED SO HARD TO GET YOU FOOLS ELECTED!
That's my tinfoil opinion.
Can't disagree with you there, but Mr. Graham is exempt from SS taxes. He has a special program that you and I don't qualify for.
I hate to say it, but I'm now rooting for this whole reform plan to die. My fear is that we'll wind up with a compromise: The Dems will raise or eliminate the cap (with Mr. Graham's help), in exchange for Bush promising to do nothing else with the system.
It is amazing how REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING is never a consideration in solving money issue with the government....isn't it a real coincidence...profound observation...
"They should accept the burden, he says, "with the whole idea that you're helping people less fortunate than you."
Geez, I already am. It is a large percentage of the $XX,000 in taxes I already pay, including Social Insecurity.
Somebody needs an imagination.
What the HELL is LG thinking. My wife and grossed over $130,000 last year, but we are broke. I pay SSI as a self-employed person. We send our kids to private school. We don't own our own home. Why the HELL should we be taking care of others who could be taking care of themselves?
Agreed, it is as if he had his good conservative self surgically removed.
It's 8k for everyone. Employers don't pay it out of goodness of their hearts. They take it right out of your salary structure.
Let's get that talking point straight people. SS tax is 13% for everyone right now. That's a hell of a lot.
No mention of PA in this article. Personal Accounts are the deal breaker for me. I would be willing to accept something like this if it included diverting a portion of the taxes into a personal named account for me. That way the extra $8k you can keep under your name.
It's not great but it can be adjusted as we go on as people realize the benefits of personal accounts. But we have to get that in on this plan. Why do you think the Dems are so opposed? They know what it means for the future.
But on the other hand, if there's no personal accounts, why bother? let the system die.
one-termer...
"I hate to say it, but I'm now rooting for this whole reform plan to die. My fear is that we'll wind up with a compromise: The Dems will raise or eliminate the cap (with Mr. Graham's help), in exchange for Bush promising to do nothing else with the system."
My sentiments exactly.... this "reform" train seems to be in danger of being hijacked.
I wonder how many billions would go back into the pockets of US taxpayers/consumers if Social Security was abolished and the entire SS bureaucracy were disbanded.
Your information is wrong. I'm a teacher/librarian and I have no access to privatized Social Security.
Indeed there is...get rid of it.
Just give me my "investment" back and let me opt out....
This statement reveals Lindsay Graham as an economic ignoramus and forever disqualifies him from holding public office in the United States. Maybe Hugo Chavez needs a compliant legislator?
He is why: The cap increases every year based on inflation. In a few years the cap will be above $160,000 anyway. What we could do is change the law to increase the cap now, but lock it in place. In the long run the government will get LESS taxes. In the few years that the government would be collecting more taxes from the cap increase then they would have otherwise been, we can use the extra money to pay the transition costs.
Unfortunately expecting Republicans to be smart is wishful thinking.
Who's we, Kemosabe?
Your talking about Congress here. There is no lock they can put on that they don't keep the keys for.
Conservative castration or a liberal lobotomy.
S-corp pass-through income is exempt from SE tax - should this pass, I see lots of new S-corp's on the horizon...
Mr. Graham does not seem to understand that the Social Security Money I and my employer pay is "supposedly" for my account. The bloody sods on each side of the aisle treat those taxes as their money not mine. They have spent the money and it is gone. Why in the hell should I trust them with more of my money with a promise to use it correctly this time. They Lie.
I would prefer to accept reduced benefits as opposed to higher taxes in the present. What I really wish they would do is just give my money back inflation adjusted with interest at the same rate treasury certificates would have earned during the same time frame. I would not need social security if they did that.
Ping to ya.
He's lost his mind!!!!!!!!!!
"We're going to take things away from you
on behalf of the common good."
Hillary Clinton
They should accept the burden, he says, "with the whole idea that you're helping people less fortunate than you."
Lindsay Graham
There are other Republicans with plans, but the WP likes this one because it raises taxes. Those taxes poay for all those blaqck tie lobster dinners in DC, you know.
If you have a pension and don't pay social security tax, your pension is the private social security. Most teachers have this system. Look at your paycheck and I bet you are on the same system.
They also have private savings accouns....but they do pay social security taxes.
"Actually raising the cap to $160,000 wouldn't be bad if we're smart about it."
That's a very dumb idea. You NEVER raise or add taxes in hopes of saving us from taxes in the future. They would just change the law in the future to allow inflation and your plan would be in the toilet. DON'T RAISE TAXES. REPEAT AFTER ME, DON'T RAISE TAXES.
I think you are wrong. There are people that don't pay social security taxes because they opted out of it with certain pension plans. That's why some teachers get other jobs so that they can get social security and their opted out pensions.
Just referring to congress-creatures and gummint workers.
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.
