Posted on 11/26/2007 3:00:11 PM PST by Delacon
Older Americans tend to think of Social Security as something we ought to be able to afford. Indeed, many seniors tell themselves that when Washington pours extra cash into the New Deal pension program, the action is something like investing in a new Volvo. The purchase may look extravagant but is, in reality, deliciously necessary. This attitude is also held by some of our most respected pension officials. The longtime Social Security Administration commissioner Robert M. Ball wrote on this page recently that "it's the essence of responsibility, in my view, to insist on no benefit cuts" ["A Social Security Fix for 2008," Oct. 29].
Ball is partially right. American retirees can have a Volvo. There is a way to keep Social Security with no benefit cuts. It is the upgrade that's the problem. There is no way the country can afford a newer model for each new cohort of retirees. Not when the economy grows at a rate of 1 percent or 2 percent or 3.9 percent -- the rate it expanded in the third quarter this year. The reasons for this trace not as much to the New Deal as to postwar authorities, including Ball himself.
Franklin Roosevelt explicitly limited Social Security's commitment, saying in August 1935 that the goal of the new program was not a total pension but "some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family." I.S.C. 9, the legendary pamphlet that laid out the program, likewise delineated a ceiling on Social Security payments through the decades. "You and your employer will each pay three cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever have to pay," it said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Because, damn it, we paid for it!”
True enough, but you didn’t pay for your OWN SS—you paid for your parents’. The government has no contractual nor legal obligation to pay any SS to anyone. It is, in the final analysis, an income transfer program from the young to the old.
One more excellent reason to privatize the system.
If your grandfather had been paying into a privatized system, he would've owned the fund. And, like everything else in his estate, it would have accrued to your grandmother upon his death.
But it wouldn't have given the Democrats a single vote. So, they'd never agree to privatization.
Spoken like a true bureaucrat.
“The government has no contractual nor legal obligation to pay any SS to anyone. It is, in the final analysis, an income transfer program from the young to the old.”
No. Its an income transfer from the young to a massive debt of the older generations with no plan for parity for the young from future generations. If the old farts(cons and libs) can live with that(and I am sure they can) so be it. My aim is to thwart them on this.
Fix it the Republican, conservative way. Cut Social Security taxes. Cutting taxes raises revenue, right? I don’t understand why no GOP Presidential candidate is proposing this. It’s the only way to fix Social Security.
Heck, they don't even have to be rabid in my neck of the woods.
It is just a tax. Like all the other taxes we pay. It is not a fund that anyone pays into. In the minds of the FDR addled generations that grew up on it when the tax paid more into the federal coffers than it took out. It didn’t matter that it wasn’t a retirement pool. That it was just another way to sap billions of dollars from the people and pay for All government spending. Sure, they didn’t care because they knew it wouldnt matter for them when the bill came due. Now the bill is coming due and the boomers are using their considerable political might to make sure the bill gets handed off to the next generation. Their retirement will cost more than all the revenues coming in can pay for when you take in all other required spending like defense and entitlements.
Cons are, pubbies aren't. We are in a significant minority. That doesn't mean we should quit though.
You really need to consider another perspective when isolating descriptive monikers. The political construct is not just cons and libs. As a practical matter it is a matrix of cons,libs,pubs, and dems. There are no moderates. Additionally, there are the reactionary and radical components. Also, you need to add the judicial elements and fifth columnist (or 4th estate, your call) media to the matrix.
Now, when you've composed your matrix, run an analysis using as many demographics as possible, you'll see that the solution does not lie in the political realm.
“Spoken like a true bureaucrat.”
I’m just trying to set people’s expectation correctly—the government has no obligation to pay anything. This has been tried in court and there is no legal agreement nor ownership of the money you’ve paid into SS.
Now, my solution is to 1) don’t spend the surplus money that SS is now collecting; 2) means test SS benefits—don’t pay out if the person has income in excess of -——— (pick a number). I’d say less that a million, more than $200,000. 3) Allow people to devote up to 2% of their SS tax to a personal IRA account. They may select any stock or mutual fund. It defaults to an index of the top 3000 stocks. The money this generates goes into their account. 4) Freeze SS benefits. No more inflation adjustments. 5) Any deficit that occurs (between payouts and income) will come from the general fund, funded by spending cuts. 6) Once the people with the retirement accounts retire, the government no longer has to pay SS nor tax for it, since the benefits from the accounts will exceed the SS benefits. People will still “have” to save 2%, but not the 6% plus the 6% of the company they work for. 7) The incredible increase in savings in the US will greatly benefit the economy. I’m not sure how Pres. Bush failed to sell this before.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Ms. Shlaes was referring to Thompson's proposal to peg S.S. increases to the CPI instead of to the wage index without naming him.
I fear that no one's paying attention to the issues.
Not a good omen for Mr. Thompson -- abortion and speculation on his belly-fire is so much more popular, I guess.
Most Xers are more socially liberal but economically conservative from my experience. Most of my friends feel they want to keep your nose out of the bedroom and your hand of my wallet (including for money to look in the bedroom). My wife is all around liberal—but I’m still working on her. She’s becoming more conservative each year. She was a straight up socialist in the middle of college a few years ago.
wanna fix it? Take all the immigrants that are on it and tell them NO, you haven’t paid anything into the program to deserve anything out. Many of these guys take their work record from their home country and come here getting FREE benes with no input, and out govt cries there is NO money.
“I’m just trying to set people’s expectation correctly—the government has no obligation to pay anything. This has been tried in court and there is no legal agreement nor ownership of the money you’ve paid into SS.”
This is a fact. The government could say SS has ended tomorrow and there is not one thing anyone could do about it. That was one of the arguments for privitization. You legally own that portion of your retirement savings. Its property. You can will it to your children. Not so with all the money you fork over to the government as a SS tax. Its just another tax. It goes in with all the other money you pay out and like piss is a swimming pool you cant seperate it out.
Believe me, by the time I turn 65, it will be 70. And by the time I turn 70, it will be 75.
“If the amount you paid in (plus the employer’s portion) over the last 30 odd years had been invested and not pi$$ed away by the crooked politicians, your account would be worth millions now.”
If wishes were horse, beggars would ride. What might have been and all that. Previous generations took a dollar in/dollar out system and messed it up from the beginning. Now we are expected to pay for it. The guy says “Its mine because, if I had invested that money I’d have some much more now if I hadn’t willingly handed it over to the SS admin”. Thats like saying if I had put my money in Microsoft back in 88 instead of Enron I’d have so much money now, so I am entitled to something. Enron equals the government. And nobody is entitled to squat if I have my say.
Raise the retirement age to 80 and SS is fixed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That’ll do’er allright! But everybody will have to be self-employed because nobody wants to hire us old farts over 45 now!
Hey Army, you're correct here, FDR deliberately engaged in the dissemination of misinformation. The government called a tax "contributions" and referred to an "account" like it was a contract with the government.
However, you paid taxes and got an entitlement which can be rescinded at the whim of Congress, unlike a contract which cannot
I’m self employed but my wife still has a job and she’s 70.
Work at it and you can be empolyed after 45!
You can’t “fix” Social Security. It’s a worthless ponzi scheme that was destined to failure from day one simply because it can’t work and politicians control it with their meddling.
Any talk of “fixing” or “changing” is ridiculous. It should be eliminated. Period.
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.