Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

A 2nd Democrat for Social Security Changes

Senate Social Security Reform Democrat Sen. Tom Carper D-Del

  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#61 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 05:01 PM

The people who are dependent on it were MADE dependent BY the system.

#62 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 16 February 2005 - 05:04 PM

I would say that President Bush is looking for options.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6979993/

The problem is that SS is in or near a crisis only because it takes so long for things to happen. Those that want to wait, in my opinion, are adding to that. If we wait for theyear things get tight, it will still take congress a long time to decide what to do, then it has to be implemented. Add to that the time it takes for results and we do have a problem.

Personally, I have already decided that I will have to work until I die just to live like I am now.

Edited by Lover of Purple, 16 February 2005 - 05:07 PM.


#63 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 07:03 AM

Here's Boxer's take. Note that she doesn't say there's no problem, just that the Bush administration is resorting to scare tactics (as it is argued Clinton did) and the private accounts are not a way to "save" social security but send it "over the edge."

http://boxer.senate....d.cfm?id=232056

I'm glad to see that Bush is yielding a bit and is willing to consider raising the cap on payroll taxes.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#64 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 10:30 AM

Quote

Spectacles Posted Today, 07:03 AM
  Here's Boxer's take. Note that she doesn't say there's no problem, just that the Bush administration is resorting to scare tactics (as it is argued Clinton did) and the private accounts are not a way to "save" social security but send it "over the edge."


She does actually say there is not a crisis in your link,

Quote

http://boxer.senate....d.cfm?id=232056

Is it true that Social Security is in crisis? Is bankrupt? Is collapsing?

The answer is a resounding NO.

But back in 1998 she clearly states there was a crisis.

Quote

http://www.nationalr...00501140807.asp

In September, Vice President Al Gore went to the Capitol for a Social Security pep rally with congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. Edward Kennedy, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and others. Gore said that in coming years — by 2032 — "Social Security faces a serious fiscal crisis." Everyone in the group stayed remarkably on-message as they warned that the future was dire.

"Save Social Security first," said Gore.

"Save Social Security first," said Gephardt.

"Save Social Security first," said Kennedy.

"Save Social Security first," said Boxer.

What changed? Nothing has been done since 1998,  so why was it a crisis then and not now according to Boxers own words?  And she states we will be Ok for 38 years, thats all well and fine. I don't care about myself.  If I never receive a dime from SS,  I can continue to live my life at the same level I live now until I die.  My concern is for the future.  What about my children,  my grandchildren and so on,  how will doing nothing effect them and their futures?

My take on Boxers speech. She has no room to talk about scare tactics, YIKES!!!!  That is exactly what her speech was all about.   All those words and not one damn  idea from her about what should be done.  Only words of how Bushs plan is not going to work.  He has clearly said,  he is open to all ideas from both sides, bring your ideas forward.  Where are all of her ideas?  Buried in the sand with her head.  

~Red

#65 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 11:07 AM

Not having a good of idea of ones own, does not invalidate critisism of a bad idea.

The popular notion that it is better to do something than nothing is about as stupid as notions get.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#66 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 11:25 AM

What Steven said. :)

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#67 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 12:50 PM

Yet he continues to do as he wants and no one calls him on it.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#68 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 04:37 PM

Quote

You must never have known any of the millions of seniors who can't survive without it or you wouldn't be making that statement. Many people, for whatever reason, don't have adequate retirement plans.

It's kinda hard to plan for retirement when the government takes 10% of your paycheck every week. The logic you're using here-- the government can create a dependency via overtaxation, then use the dependency to justify overtaxation-- is extremely dangerous. Any random thing could be justified with it. There will be a percentage of people who don't plan for retirement even if their money is restored. I'm not convinced, however, that we should penalize nearly everybody else for the benefit of that percentage. Again, though, we're stuck with social security one way or another, and privatization doesn't seem to solve the probelm.

RuReddy-- What changed is that we had a surplus and peace, so an impending social security problem (which, notably, has moved from 2032 to 2045 without us doing *anything*) seemed like a legitimate policy exercise. Now we have a deficit and war, which naturally changes everybody's priorities. But isn't it interesting that the problem date has been pushed back 13 years in the past 6 years, without us doing anything? Food for thought.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#69 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 04:39 PM

I think it is important to note that there is no Bush plan as of yet. He has mentioned one of the goals, but there isn't a plan laid out. No one can say if it good or bad if it doesn't exsist.
Can't Touch This!!

#70 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 08:55 PM

This might change things.

http://story.news.ya..._security_taxes

Quote

Increasing Social Security taxes for the wealthiest Americans could raise more than $100 billion a year — enough to shore up the retirement system's finances for 75 years, pay for President Bush 's plan for private accounts, or part of each.

As it is, only the first $90,000 of a workers' wages are subject to the tax, but Bush says he's willing to consider changing that.

Raising taxes, even if on the rich, is a risky political proposition. Both Republicans and Democrats distanced themselves from the idea Thursday.

"I don't know too many Republicans who are interested in doing that," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. "I personally see this as one of the least attractive options."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party would be attacked for advocating tax increases if it embraced the idea. "We're not going to fall for that," he said.

Bush said Thursday that members of Congress should feel free to make any such proposals "without political retribution."

"It used to be in the past people would step up and say, `Well, here's an interesting idea.' Then they would take that idea and clobber the person politically," Bush said at a news conference. "What I'm saying to members of Congress is that we have a problem, come together and let's fix it, and bring your ideas forward."

On Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats described Bush's offer as a ploy to get them to put forward unpopular proposals.

They said they remained opposed to his plan, and they unveiled a Web site calculator designed to show workers they would be worse off than under current law.

While Republicans said the idea of subjecting more wages to Social Security taxes would not be popular, most didn't rule it out.

"It's something I would not do myself, but the soup's not done yet," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Different people have different ideas about how to use the money such changes would generate.

Some would put the cash into helping eliminate the system's long-term financial problems.

As is, beginning as early as 2018, the system is set to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. And by 2042, the money stored up from past surpluses will be exhausted and Social Security will only be able to pay 73 percent of promised benefits from the revenues it will be taking in, according to the program's trustees.

Eliminating the cap on wages subject to taxation would push those dates back. An analysis written last week by Social Security actuaries found that eliminating the cap would mean the system would continue to collect more than it paid out until 2025, and would stay solvent for 75 years, the window traditionally used to evaluate the program's finances.

The system stays solvent for a bit longer than 75 years if you raise taxes on these high earners but don't raise their future benefits to match. As is, retirement benefits are tied to the taxes paid during working years.

Either way, beyond about 75 years, the system will face trouble again because people are living longer and collecting benefits for more years, and this trend eventually would overtake the additional revenue.

Bush wants a permanent fix, and he says his plan for private accounts would help achieve it. This would allow younger workers to divert 4 percentage points of their tax into personal accounts that could be invested in stocks and bonds, which have historically earned more than Social Security trust funds do.

But it costs a lot to move to this system — more than $1 trillion in the first 10 years, and more after that.

That's because younger workers will be diverting money to personal accounts that the system needs to pay current benefits. One way to fill the gap would be to raise the cap on the taxation of wages.

A handful of plans circulating on Capitol Hill suggest raising the limit on wages subject to Social Security taxation.

Under current law, wages up to $90,000 are taxed at 12.4 percent for Social Security, with employers and employees splitting the tax. People who work for themselves pay both shares.

Just 6 percent of American workers earn more than $90,000 per year, and wages over this threshold are not taxed for Social Security. In all, there is $845 billion in payroll that won't be taxed by Social Security this year.

Bush has long said he is firmly opposed to raising the 12.4 percent tax rate, but until this week he and his advisers had been intentionally vague about whether he would rule out increasing the wages subjected to taxation.

The impact of doing so would be felt on the wealthiest Americans. It could cost a worker earning $120,000 per year $1,860 more, and his employer the same. A worker who earned $150,000 would pay an extra $3,700 in taxes, with her employer paying an equal amount.

Eliminating the cap altogether would generate about $105 billion per year in 2005 dollars, although some of that money would be dedicated to Social Security's disability program. That's more than $1 trillion over a decade.

Some lawmakers propose raising the cap but not eliminating it. Raising the limit so that wages up to $160,000 were taxed, for instance, would generate about $525 billion over 10 years.

:wacko:
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#71 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 09:23 PM

Yeah, I think we have to raise the cap (albeit not to infinity) and leave it at that. I'm not for means-testing benefits; anybody in a higher income bracket is already getting screwed by social security, and removing what little benefit they do get from the program doesn't seem right. It's essentially a tax hike on only the rich, but hey, they can defray it with the income tax breaks they've gotten recently. I'm sure it'll still be a net gain.

Edited by Hotspur Rovinski, 17 February 2005 - 09:26 PM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#72 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 10:52 PM

Hotspur Rovinski, on Feb 17 2005, 05:37 PM, said:

RuReddy-- What changed is that we had a surplus and peace, so an impending social security problem (which, notably, has moved from 2032 to 2045 without us doing *anything*) seemed like a legitimate policy exercise. Now we have a deficit and war, which naturally changes everybody's priorities. But isn't it interesting that the problem date has been pushed back 13 years in the past 6 years, without us doing anything? Food for thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


That isn't really true.  The date has changed because things have been done, laws passed, that will reduce what people get at various stages and lengthening the retirement age. A lot has been done to lengthen solvency.   Of course, the value of lasting more years when what people will be getting in 2030 won't equate to what they get now, not even close, is questionable.

And it should not be forgotten that social security went into effect when most working people were getting a pension.  The fact is that most people working today, unless they are in government, will never get a pension of any kind.  People who are currently getting pensions have seen their medical plans cut and their costs sky rocket.  A lot of assumptions that existed around SS no longer apply.

#73 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 17 February 2005 - 11:04 PM

HubcapDave, on Feb 14 2005, 06:24 PM, said:

Steven_Q, on Feb 14 2005, 03:09 PM, said:

HubcapDave, on Feb 14 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

The burden placed on the individual wouldn't be any greater than picking out their own retirement plans (which many seem to be quite capable of).

Tell that to the tens of thousands who saw their retirement funds massacred by the IT bubble bursting.

Tell that to the thousands who invested unwisely in certainproperty brokerage firms in the UK in the late 80's.

Tell that to the millions today who think 'diversify' is a good investment strategy.

Statistically, the majority of people who invest themselves without education in the field fail. No sugarcoating changes that.

Still i'm content to be here in 2012 and post the biggest I Told You So you've ever seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Considering that most people (that I know, at least) don't buy and sell stocks directly, but work through investment brokers.

Secondly, I take the dot com bust as an anomaly, not as an indication of the general trend of the market. People were so willing to throw out the old rules and proclaim the "new economy" that they forgot you still gotta make a buck to survive in business. Besides, when you invest for your retirement, you do so with a long term view, not a short term. If people were investing their retirement money in day trading, then they were foolish for doing so. But that does not mean we need the government to save us from ourselves, that is not it's function.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Very true.  They had been warning all through 1998,1999 that it was going to burst. The market was founded on nothing, speculation had become nothing more than legalized gambling, people kept saying the old rules didn't apply (suddenly gravity doesn't exist?) and so on.  People chose to ignore the warnings because they were on a wild ride and thought they could get rich from nothing. Not much different from the roaring 20s actually.

And it's not the goverment's job to decide what's best for us, unless you live in a socialist country I suppose.  However, as a society, it is up to us to take care of our own. We can't leave people on the street.  So we need to find a balance between not having a huge big brother government, but also making sure that we have the resources to take care of those who need help  as opposed to those scamming the system).

#74 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 18 February 2005 - 06:00 AM

I can't attest to the accuracy of this gizmo, but it's fun to play with nevertheless:

http://www.schumer.senate.gov/calc/#


By the way, I think it's important to note that even the more honest proponents of the privatized accounts admit that they will not solve the shortfall. They are for them because they are for the principle of them. On principle, I agree. But in reality, the accounts siphon off a portion of funds from the trust, actually bringing the "crisis" (or "problem," if you'd rather) home to roost sooner rather than later.

So, all the rhetoric about the private accounts being a means to fix the problem is pretty much smoke and mirrors.

Take a look at Greenspan's comments this week. While the proponents have latched on to Greenspan's saying that he approves of private accounts, they neglect to include his remarks that:

"I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way."

Quote

Mr. Greenspan agreed with Democratic lawmakers that private accounts would do nothing in themselves to solve Social Security's long-run financial shortfall or to increase national savings, which he said was the crucial underlying problem.

Mr. Greenspan also warned that financial markets might not agree with White House claims that borrowing to pay for "transition costs" of private accounts would have no effect on the United States' long-run indebtedness.

"We don't know how the markets respond to that," Mr. Greenspan said. "And if we were to go forward in a large way and we were wrong, it would be creating more difficulties than I would imagine."


http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2

So, Greenspan likes the idea, but doesn't see as as solving Social Security's problems down the line--and sees it possibly, if implemented badly, adding to the nation's already serious indebtedness.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#75 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 18 February 2005 - 08:46 AM

Quote

I can't attest to the accuracy of this gizmo, but it's fun to play with nevertheless:

I don't like it. Some of the shortfall comes from assuming that benefits will be reindexed to prices instead of wages (which may or may not happen, and is a question independent of Bush's plan), and the rest comes from assuming a 2.7% interest rate (!). That hardly seems likely to be an average case. Even in these low interest times, an investment as safe and low risk as a certificate of deposit for one year will yield above 3% (and a 5 year one can get you closer to 4.5%/year).

If you let an advocate make any random assumptions-- for instance, social security benefits will be doubled and private accounts will yield 25% a year-- then we could get similar results, just as meaningless.

None of that, of course, makes privatization a good idea. But still, the calculator sucks.

[What I would like to see is a calculator that lets you play around with payroll tax rates, caps, etc., to see how much it takes to make social security solvent until, say, 2100. That would be instructive.]
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#76 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 18 February 2005 - 11:51 AM

HubcapDave, on Feb 14 2005, 10:24 PM, said:

Considering that most people (that I know, at least) don't buy and sell stocks directly, but work through investment brokers.

Perhaps those that you know.  Personally, I don't have any experience with stocks, bonds, or futures, but my father's career is in the financial industry.  He started with Richardson Greenshields, which was merged into Merrill Lynch.  Then, he left Merill Lynch to start his own business with his business partner, and the two now work for Union Securities, trading in futures.  I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt in my mind that personal trading (ie, eliminating the broker as the middleman) has had an enormous impact, at least here in Canada.  A subtantial portion of the investing population have gone to online trading in some form, though I'm not aware of any statistics on the matter.  If you'd like, I can look into getting numbers.

#77 Nonprofit

Nonprofit
  • Islander
  • 2,163 posts

Posted 18 February 2005 - 01:01 PM

Hey look at it this way.  If the democrats don't want things to change,  then they will just have to work with the way FDR set up the program.  And the rest of us will look to the future,  with putting ideas on the table and working out a suitable plan that will work for us.

http://www.humaneven...cle.php?id=6330

Quote

Who Broke the 'Promise' of Social Security?

In the Social Security debate, the one thing that every politician and media analyst seems to agree upon is that however Social Security is eventually saved, benefits for each retiree must not be reduced. To do so is unthinkable, because it would break the “promise” of Social Security. People have done their part, it is argued. They’ve paid their odious payroll taxes for decades and done so with the confidence that it was for a reason -- that in the end they would be provided for, at some humble level, in the twilight of their lives.

But what, exactly, was the “promise” that is now the most sacred cow in all of politics? It’s a very strange promise indeed that would seem to require us to eventually consume unthinkable portions of the economy just to keep it. And why have we been able to keep the promise for 70 years now, only to have it seem so untenable today? Did the promise change?

Let’s examine the promise as it was originally made to America by the New Dealers in the depths of the Great Depression. Social Security promised people who had not been able to provide for their individual retirements with their individual funds that -- were they to simply pool their resources -- they would be able to provide for their common retirements with their common funds. Essentially it promised that what was insufficient for one, when multiplied by ten, would somehow then be sufficient for ten -- or perhaps even eleven. Lacking the power to recapitulate the miracle of the loaves and fishes, the government pulled this trick off by adding an extra ingredient: theft.

The theft took several forms; one was income redistribution (shortchanging those who paid most to give to those who paid least). Another was a form of involuntary insurance in which everyone would be required to pay into the system, but anyone who died before retirement would get little back out, thus leaving more money for those who could still vote, i.e. the living. But the most important theft was intergenerational theft. The original recipients had paid little, if anything, into the system, yet received benefits. This was possible through the innovation known to prosecutors as a “Pyramid Scheme”. While people like to think they are paying for their own future retirement with their Social Security taxes, they are in fact paying for the current retirees. The money is taken from the young and given to the old, who “deserve” it because they paid for the old back when they were young -- all except for the original benefit recipients, who deserved their money for having voted for Roosevelt. The scheme worked, despite the fact that the average retiree received more in benefits than he paid in taxes, because there were always more young than old.

This was especially true at the outset of the program, when the retirement age was suspiciously near the average lifespan of the day. Thus, about half of all people would die before ever receiving a penny, and most of the rest could be counted on to die within a few years of retirement. Additionally, the system was created at a time when sex had a surprisingly direct correlation with pregnancy -- the birth control pill having not yet been invented, but sex having been known for some time. So the promise of Social Security, as originally offered, was something along the lines of “Have lots of kids and die young, and we’ll pay for your brief golden years by stealing from your kids, who’ll all think it’s ok, ‘cause later we’ll steal from their kids too.”

Looked at this way, it’s easy to see why the Social Security system is regarded as the greatest accomplishment of the Democratic party, and why it is the most hallowed of our government programs. That’s why the people that broke the promise should be so ashamed. These people include anyone who had fewer than five children or lived past 65. The prolific and dead are the bedrock upon which the system is built and deserve a round of applause. The rest of you, however, should stop whining about any proposed cut or alteration in benefits, because you have already failed to live up to your part of the promise, as originally agreed upon. Having unilaterally altered the contract in your favor, you should not be surprised when the whole system then needs recalibrating to take into account your selfish ways. You should be ashamed. But special blame must be heaped upon the drug industry, which as usual, is costing society billions. Were it not for Sulfa drugs, Penicillin, artificial estrogen and the like, the Social Security system would still be solvent as far as the eye can see. It’s easy to see why Michael Moore has singled the industry out as the target of his next Crockumentary.

But what is the poor government to do now that you have broken the promise? Obviously, it will have no choice but to raise the retirement age since you insist on living so long. (You can still retire whenever you want, you just can’t expect Social Security to subsidize your prolonged inactivity.) Additionally, it will need to decrease the rate at which benefits are slated to grow. Other common sense measures would include private accounts, as the President has proposed, not paying benefits to amnestied illegal immigrants, and as Phillip Longman has suggested, making it more affordable for people to have children, which are the only investment upon which future prosperity is really based. It is the poverty of children that will actually bankrupt the system, after all.

The only alternatives to such measures are to allow the system to continue to consume a greater and greater portion of our national productivity every generation -- or go back to dying early.

Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer standing at FDR's memorial,  taking their stand the day after Bush gave his SOTU address sure gave us a good indication of what their choice would be.  

~Red

#78 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 18 February 2005 - 03:50 PM

Quote

Rov: If you let an advocate make any random assumptions-- for instance, social security benefits will be doubled and private accounts will yield 25% a year-- then we could get similar results, just as meaningless.

True.

Quote

I don't like it. Some of the shortfall comes from assuming that benefits will be reindexed to prices instead of wages (which may or may not happen, and is a question independent of Bush's plan),

Yes, but that *is* one detail we know Bush is considering seriously.

Quote

and the rest comes from assuming a 2.7% interest rate (!).

Well, it's really assuming a 3% rate with .03% taken out for administrative costs. And Shumer says he's going with that rate because that's what OBM uses in its SS analyses.


Quote

None of that, of course, makes privatization a good idea. But still, the calculator sucks.

Yeah, it's not an accurate crystal ball, that's for sure. But it does demonstrate, I think, that we need to read the fine print and balk if anywhere it in reads "price indexing." That in itself will cut future guaranteed benefits of younger workers considerably. Also, we need to be aware that the amount a taxpayer invests in the private account will be deducted from the guarenteed benefit, further reducing it.

Now, it's entirely possible that the market will go into a nice, long, bull run--like it did in the 90's--and make up the difference and then some. But it's also possible that the bears will take over and the market will drop in value, leaving some with substantially less in retirement after price-indexing and the chunk taken out of the guarenteed amount to finance the investment.

And, perhaps most fundamentally, we all need to remember that the private accounts will not fix the structural shortfall.

Frankly, I like O'Neill's idea best of all--redefine SS as a savings program, not an insurance program, and grow the money in broad-based indexes. Of course, for that to work, Congress would have to keep its mits off the money.



Quote

[What I would like to see is a calculator that lets you play around with payroll tax rates, caps, etc., to see how much it takes to make social security solvent until, say, 2100. That would be instructive.]


That would interesting indeed. I wonder if such a thing exists... You'd think that this problem ought to be approached as a math problem rather than a conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat problem.  :dontgetit:

Edited by Spectacles, 18 February 2005 - 03:52 PM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Social Security, Reform, Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper D-Del

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users