Posted on 10/18/2007 10:07:04 AM PDT by Fred
"There's a role here for the non-profit world, which is itself awash in cash. How about a $100 million ad campaign to demystify Thompson's peg proposal? The baby boomers are a remarkably unselfish crowd, in spite of their reputation."
(Excerpt) Read more at amityshlaes.com ...
FReds' the ONLY hope the GOP has to defeat the Hildabeast. You aren't going to get middle-of-the-road voters, or the "independent" voters (those who don't vote straight party-line EVERY election) without a common sense plain-talker.
Sorry, but the polished politicians and the pandering rhetoric of the RINO's ain't gonna get it done in '08, nor is the candidate who is unknown nationally going to win. (Pray for a Thompson/Hunter ticket).
You want some of these cigarettes I'm smokin', go down to the corner...they sell them most everywhere (so far), although half the cost is taxes now.....
Sorry, Reagan is not Fred on many levels. AND if Fred is elected the economy going in is much different than it was when Reagan took over. He had a mess and people demanded change. Also the Dems were in disarray... if you recall Kennedy tried to take the nomination away from Carter. Further just about anybody could have beaten Jimmy Carter at that time.
Well those are a bunch of other issues... we were talking about Fred’s plan to cut the increase in SS Cola’s for social security. Hey the Rudy people claim Rudy is the only hope. The Fred people claim Fred is the only hope. As Jesse says...keep hope alive!
I support it, if they also index the maximum taxed amount to inflation instead of wages.
Your parents’ claim of injustice is ignorant on an even more basic level. Social Security has been funded as a generational Ponzi scheme. Like any Ponzi scheme, the early investors (often only the founder of the scheme) make tremendous returns. Once investors understand that the scheme is without a foundation, it collapses and most investors lose their money.
In Social Security, several generations of early retirees have collected benefits far in excess of any taxes paid. Your parents (and mine) are probably in that group. Payroll taxes were relatively low and then benefits were increased. Only later were payroll taxes greatly increased. In addition with women working much less in the generations of early retirees, the benefits were even higher because non working spouses receive spousal benefits.
The greatest generation has been a roadblock for Social Security reform. It is a something for nothing attitude of the greatest generation that has been a major factor in failure to privatize Social Security. In addition, it is a stubborn attitude to insist that Social Security benefits were earned when it is easy to see the Ponzi structure of the program. Politicians encouraged this thinking process and reform has been impossible.
You are also uninformed about getting a reasonable return for your social security taxes unless you are a low wage earner with a non working spouse. Most baby boomers and beyond will receive negative returns even without considering the looming crisis. The crisis will bring lower benefits, directly or indirectly. I would prefer the direct approach through privatization or raising the retirement age. The indirect approach through a combination of increased payroll taxes and borrowing may have much more severe side effects.
This is the misconception that socialists want people to believe.
What Fred is suggesting has NOTHING to do with reducing the COLA increases during retirement.
There are TWO different “inflation” figures used for SS:
1) After a person begins collecting SS benefits, those benefits go up each year to keep pace with inflation in prices. This is COLA, and Fred’s suggestion has NOTHING to do with any changes to that formula.
2) While a person is still years away from retirement, the SSA uses a DIFFERENT formula to estimate what your benefits will be. That estimate is based on WAGE inflation, which has historically been higher than PRICE inflation. Using WAGE inflation means you are promised a higher monthly benefit. In REAL PURCHASING POWER, you will have a better retirement than CURRENT retirees. Switching to PRICE inflation means you would have IDENTICAL purchasing power compared to current retirees.
So it would be a cut in benefits compared to what has been promised, but no cut compared to what current retirees get.
What say you on NOT TAXING SS all together??? I find that strategy very appealing..
Excellent post.
Regarding Sen. Thompson’s call for boomers to make the sacrifice, as a boomer (b. 1960), I’m up for it. I’m willing to accept significant loss of benefits IF the savings are used to fix the system, especially to move to a system of private accounts.
I don’t want to steal from my kids and grandkids to support an unsupportable system. I’d prefer to eat dog food, first.
sitetest
I wasn’t talking about the tax on the benefits, I’m talking about the limit to the amount you earn that is taxed FOR social security. It rises each year, I think by the same rate as the benefits.
But I’m not absolutely sure of that. Does anybody know for sure how they set the Social Security tax cutoff each year?
“Accept? It is already done. The so called benefits do not exist.”
Well, not quite. To fully fund the benefits that we baby boomers have been promised would cost a bit. I’ve read that it would likely require payroll taxes of 35% or more (employer and employee combined). That’s more than double what they are now.
One would hope that folks would rebel at the prospect of paying a third or more of income for payroll taxes to prop up a failed plan. But we should remember the frog in the pot of increasingly warm water. The current payroll tax rate is an order of magnitude greater than the original rate.
But even without a significant increase in payroll taxes, or even any increase at all, Social Security benefits would still be paid, although they’d need to be lowered. No increase in the payroll tax rate would necessitate a sharp reduction in benefits. Small increases in the payroll tax rate would necessitate more modest reductions.
sitetest
The earnings cap is based on the average wage index (AWI). The AWI is derived from data on federal tax returns: wages subject to Federal income taxes and contributions to deferred compensation plans. The earnings cap increases according to the AWI.
Raising the retirment age won’t hack it. I have been attending aging conferences and the medical reality is that people start deteriorating in their mental acuity and physical stamina and health after 65. Some will be unable to do the work they used to. This will affect their earning capacity.
I think that social security should consider overall income. There should be a graduated ceiling on those who can receive benefits. Lower income people were not able to save. They needed every cent to survive at a modest standard of living. Higher earners have other income sources. They should not be subsidized in their retirement by the next generation. Their income and standard of living is not the same “social” issue.
Therefore what? What are you trying to accomplish?
So conservatism, honesty, and responsibility are off the table? Even here on FR? What do you hope to accomplish with this approach?
I would be willing to cut my losses right now if I were able to opt out of SS.
Just tell me where to sign.
“I think that social security should consider overall income. There should be a graduated ceiling on those who can receive benefits. Lower income people were not able to save. They needed every cent to survive at a modest standard of living. Higher earners have other income sources. They should not be subsidized in their retirement by the next generation. Their income and standard of living is not the same ‘social’ issue.”
But the system already accounts for this. Low wage earners receive proportionately more Social Security benefit than high wage earners. As Social Security is currently structured, it takes from the well-off and gives to the poor.
As well, if I were to receive my full Social Security benefits in 2027, when I’m 67, it would be unjust to say that my benefits would be a “subsidy.” I’ve paid (along with my employers, although I’ve been self-employed for most of my adult life) six figures into Social Security. As it is, the benefit promised to me will represent something on the order of no return or a negative return, if I’d have been permitted to invest my money privately.
Literally, I may have been better off stuffing the money under the mattress.
I’m willing to forgo my benefits to help transition to a new system that’s actuarially sound (preferably compromising private retirement accounts funded by existing payroll taxes), but I’m unwilling to have the benefits that I would have received based on the contributions that I’ve made be called a “subsidy.”
sitetest
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.