Private accounts: The dumbest thing ever

[David S]

The federal government has collected trillions of dollars in taxes over the years and what do they have to show for it?... A $7 trillion dollar debt!  Possible they can achieve such spectacular success with your retirement money as well.  Or maybe you could do better on your own.

[David S]

The federal government has collected trillions of dollars in taxes over the years and what do they have to show for it?... A $7 trillion dollar debt!  Possible they can achieve such spectacular success with your retirement money as well.  Or maybe you could do better on your own.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I just think the 4% thing is stupid...the only real point of it is to actually speed up the point at which social security goes bankrupt, so the Republicans have an excuse to dismantle it.

Either leave it alone, or fully privatize it. The 4% deal is misleading.

Fully privatizing it seems like a better plan than leaving it under the control of politicians who only know how to tax, spend and increase the debt. But making the transition to a private system is a huge problem because the government has promised trillions of dollars to people who are currently retired or about to retire. Those people were forced to put thousands of their hard earned dollars into the system and now expect to get something back, but the government has already spent the money and has nothing to give back. The only way they can be repaid is by taxing current wage earners, more deficit spending, or possibly selling off some of the governments assets. Personally the third option seems worthy of investigation to me. But it looks like Bush's plan is to make a gradual transition. That probably won't solve the central problem either but I applaud his efforts to focus attention on the problem and get the discussion going.

I gather your plan would be to eliminate the cap on income subject to SS tax. That would raise revenues, although I don't know if it would be enough to cover the shortfall or not. But thats just another plan for raising taxes. Its just a matter of someone else paying them.

[David S]

The federal government has collected trillions of dollars in taxes over the years and what do they have to show for it?... A $7 trillion dollar debt!  Possible they can achieve such spectacular success with your retirement money as well.  Or maybe you could do better on your own.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I just think the 4% thing is stupid...the only real point of it is to actually speed up the point at which social security goes bankrupt, so the Republicans have an excuse to dismantle it.

Either leave it alone, or fully privatize it. The 4% deal is misleading.

Fully privatizing it seems like a better plan than leaving it under the control of politicians who only know how to tax, spend and increase the debt. But making the transition to a private system is a huge problem because the government has promised trillions of dollars to people who are currently retired or about to retire. Those people were forced to put thousands of their hard earned dollars into the system and now expect to get something back, but the government has already spent the money and has nothing to give back. The only way they can be repaid is by taxing current wage earners, more deficit spending, or possibly selling off some of the governments assets. Personally the third option seems worthy of investigation to me. But it looks like Bush's plan is to make a gradual transition. That probably won't solve the central problem either but I applaud his efforts to focus attention on the problem and get the discussion going.

I gather your plan would be to eliminate the cap on income subject to SS tax. That would raise revenues, although I don't know if it would be enough to cover the shortfall or not. But thats just another plan for raising taxes. Its just a matter of someone else paying them.

It's a matter of making the tax fair for everyone.

One guy makes 90 grand and pays $6000. Another guy makes 150 grand and pays $9000. Both guys collect the same amount on retirement. Is that fair? If the guy making $150000 is self employed he pays $18000. but still receives no additional benefits. Still fair? BTW US congressmen earn a little over $150000 and pay nothing into SS. Is that fair?

[David S]

The federal government has collected trillions of dollars in taxes over the years and what do they have to show for it?... A $7 trillion dollar debt!  Possible they can achieve such spectacular success with your retirement money as well.  Or maybe you could do better on your own.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I just think the 4% thing is stupid...the only real point of it is to actually speed up the point at which social security goes bankrupt, so the Republicans have an excuse to dismantle it.

Either leave it alone, or fully privatize it. The 4% deal is misleading.

Fully privatizing it seems like a better plan than leaving it under the control of politicians who only know how to tax, spend and increase the debt. But making the transition to a private system is a huge problem because the government has promised trillions of dollars to people who are currently retired or about to retire. Those people were forced to put thousands of their hard earned dollars into the system and now expect to get something back, but the government has already spent the money and has nothing to give back. The only way they can be repaid is by taxing current wage earners, more deficit spending, or possibly selling off some of the governments assets. Personally the third option seems worthy of investigation to me. But it looks like Bush's plan is to make a gradual transition. That probably won't solve the central problem either but I applaud his efforts to focus attention on the problem and get the discussion going.

I gather your plan would be to eliminate the cap on income subject to SS tax. That would raise revenues, although I don't know if it would be enough to cover the shortfall or not. But thats just another plan for raising taxes. Its just a matter of someone else paying them.

It's a matter of making the tax fair for everyone.

One guy makes 90 grand and pays $6000. Another guy makes 150 grand and pays $9000. Both guys collect the same amount on retirement. Is that fair? If the guy making $150000 is self employed he pays $18000. but still receives no additional benefits. Still fair? BTW US congressmen earn a little over $150000 and pay nothing into SS. Is that fair?

I must correct something I said which was in error. Congressmen do have to pay into Social Security now. The law was changed in the early 1980s. Prior to that they did not. My appologies for the error. I stand corrected.