[VeniHemealm]

Originally posted by GePap


Rich people receieve more for their money than the poor from taxes. I was refering to general income taxes, not SS taxes. For SS taxes you are of course correct.

I have a lot of fear about messing with SS. It seems like one of those things that sounds good on paper, but I have my doubts.

[usatramadolusa]

What you get out of social security is based upon your life time earnings but there is a cap beyond which you don't get more even if you pay more. PACs for the rich people lobbied that since their payout was capped their taxes should be capped too. That sounds nice but the truth is it is unfair to the 90% to have all of their wages taxed while the wealthy 10% don't have to pay SS taxes on anything over 90k per year. Just make everyone pay the same flat tax on all their earnings and the problem is solved.

[ivandiadser]

You believe that what the people think makes any difference to your corporate overlords?

Pah!

[datingcrew]

I'm hazy on the scheme, but won't that create a one way bet?

Or are people not even allowed to control their "private" accounts?

[prearpaccew]

They aren't bonds like you would invest in. It's a promise to pay. Aren't all Treasury bonds a promise to pay? My understanding is that they basically can't refuse to pay them on pain of bankrupting the government.

[SpecialOFFER]

nm

[Esmeralfaf]

By the way, I am one of those over 55 folks so I really don't care what they do but if I was younger I would jump at the idea of investing my own money.

[Peabelilt]

If my FDIC insured account goes belly up them we are all introuble. If you are not sure what FDIC means I will be happy to explain it to you...

Won't that just mean that the government will be bailing it out again? And that insurance will (in real terms, if not on paper) cost too much anyway.

Insuring your retirement insurance... makes sense to me.

[Eagevawax]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Social Security is currently invested its entire trust fund into T-Bills. By law they must. So tell me how do privatized accounts get a higher return if they are invested in the same assets but have higher management costs?


(The reason costs are higher is because now you have 150 million individual accounts being managed instead of one federal account so you have 150 million times the management costs.) Well I didn't know that Mr. Fussy.

[YonkFiorc]

I looked up the numbers on this one the other day.

In 2010, when all the parts of the tax cuts are implemented (and possibly permanent), the top 1% will get a yearly $121 BILLION cut.

That oughta cover a tremendous chunk of the social security shortfall.

To be in the top 1% you have to make over $518K yearly. I doubt there's more than five regulars around here over the top 1% (including DanS of the Top 0.00001% - $1 billion or more ) Americans ought to be outraged that people with an average earnings of $1.1 million are getting an $84,000 tax cut. It's like they're robbing the poor to give to the rich. Yes. Robbing the poor. You know where they're going to come up with that $121 billion? I just read it in the paper the other day, they cut millions from low-income school funds. They're cutting grants for community housing developments. Eliminating Perkins grants! And trashing Social Security, one of the largest, most successful government programs ever, FDR's greatest lasting contribution to America.

This is the kind of message the Democrats should be pushing. Screw the rich and save Social Security. I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

[AntonayPina]

Agathon,

Read this from the AARP . They give you the straight story.

Why Have Trust Funds?
The securities held by the trust funds are future financial claims against the government. Securities in the Social Security trust fund accounts, along with other Social Security revenues, give the Treasury the authority to write checks. Just as a positive balance in a checking account means an individual can draw on that account, a balance in the Social Security trust funds means that checks can be written on the Social Security account.

While all government programs have Treasury accounts, for Social Security, the trust fund designation means that the total amount received by Social Security beneficiaries is not subject to the annual Congressional appropriation process. As long as there is are balances in Social Security's trust fund accounts, benefits are paid with monies designated specifically for that purpose.

The Social Security trust funds represent a long-term commitment on behalf of the government to Social Security. And, as long as the program has been in operation (64 years), the government has not defaulted on these claims.
There doesn't have to be any assets in the accounts. As long as there is a balance the govt has to pay. Now that doesn't mean that they can't pay after there is no balance, but the govt of the period could legally elect to eliminate social security at that time. The republicans want us to believe that they would have to stop all payments, but they don't.

[GEAntonio]

What if your privatized account goes belly up?

[xADMlNx]

What will guarantee your retirement is the increasing inequality in the US and the realization among younger people that their parents have made off with the cake.

That's a slow burn to a major political shift.

I hear gopher isn't too bad, if you cook it enough.

[romalama]

How can it not be fair to have everyone pay the same tax on all of their income? Especially when this small change can solve nearly all of Social Securiity's problems.

[n2Oddw8P]

Most rich people don't receive the same level of service per dollar paid in taxes as poor people already. If you believe in progressive taxation, then removing the cap on SS taxes is a no brainer.

[Donadoni1809]

finally a good poll

[shodulsilfeli]

IMO, the best plan would

a) keep social security alive for those who NEED it
and
b) give those who don't need it an alternative

Those who don't need it and pay into it all their lives, or if we feel like it pay it at a higher AMOUNT (if not a higher rate), should have some kind of benefit if they decide not to take it or pay more.

I'm thinking lower capital gains taxes on investment. That way they'll be encouraged to invest more, thus taxed more (even if the tax is lower). Get 'em on volume.

The wealthy are more likely to invest their money, and are more likely to think (and actually do) they can beat the market. It's a win win!

They pay 4% on the dollar over 90k, but if they can beat that - gains tax in their investments they won't care. I am sure that is something they would like, even with the double taxation, and SS will get more money.

[xT0U3UGh]

Hmmmm, Lincoln, what are your thoughts on Treasury Bonds?

[Kolokireo]

I thought that it was in bonds. If the government dishonours those, the US credit rating would plunge. I doubt that will happen.

If you guys want to privatize social security, go ahead. I have no problem with the US shooting itself in the foot.