SOCIAL SECURITY: Examine what others have done. In the late 1960s-early '70s, Chile implemented a privatization of their soon to be bankrupt American style SS system. The phased in a system where younger workers would put 2/3s of their SS payment into their own private account where the taxpayer could choose among a dozen different index based mutual funds and direct how their own accounts were invested. The other 1/3 went to support the old 'ponzi' scheme for the current and 'soon to be' beneficiaries. The wonderful benefit is that when a Chilean worker dies, the entire account balance remains part of that person's estate. They can pass those assets, via will, to their children, church or favorite charity. Imagine the macro-economic benefits of a young couple in their 30s or 40s inheriting $80k or $120k when a grandparent passes away...
They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake ...
They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake ...
SOCIAL SECURITY: Examine what others have done. In the late 1960s-early '70s, Chile implemented a privatization of their soon to be bankrupt American style SS system. The phased in a system where younger workers would put 2/3s of their SS payment into their own private account where the taxpayer could choose among a dozen different index based mutual funds and direct how their own accounts were invested. The other 1/3 went to support the old 'ponzi' scheme for the current and 'soon to be' beneficiaries. The wonderful benefit is that when a Chilean worker dies, the entire account balance remains part of that person's estate. They can pass those assets, via will, to their children, church or favorite charity. Imagine the macro-economic benefits of a young couple in their 30s or 40s inheriting $80k or $120k when a grandparent passes away...
They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake they had three months after Haiti. The Chile earthquake was 80x more powerful yet there were no calls for massive aid to go help Chile as there was for Haiti. The Chilean folks had the economic ability to solve their own problems.
The real problem is that it is not in the best interest of our bloated U.S. Gov't to wipe out poverty. Our politicians NEED poverty... they NEED crisis... and they have learned to "never let a good crisis go to waste".
If we didn't have poverty, we wouldn't need such an omnipotent Federal Gov't to "help us"...
(more)They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake they had three months after Haiti. The Chile earthquake was 80x more powerful yet there were no calls for massive aid to go help Chile as there was for Haiti. The Chilean folks had the economic ability to solve their own problems.
The real problem is that it is not in the best interest of our bloated U.S. Gov't to wipe out poverty. Our politicians NEED poverty... they NEED crisis... and they have learned to "never let a good crisis go to waste".
If we didn't have poverty, we wouldn't need such an omnipotent Federal Gov't to "help us"...
readied. Let them do what such people have done in other countries where they gained power enough to implement their programs. I imagine Dick Cheney would just put them in a tub of cold water without the boards. Wall Street and corporations will, of course, know nothing of what the programs involve, but Goldman Sachs will surely make IPOs out of three or four funeral home chains.
The statement about what a wealthy person pays versus a working class person is simply flawed. Wealth isn't part of the Social Security equation at all. I think you are confusing high-income with wealth and the two aren't close to the same thing.
It is not even trust that the low-wage worker pays more for Social Security than a high-wage worker. There are high wage-workers who get back as little as $0.45 on the dollar (PRE-TAX) while there are some low-wage workers who earn 9% real - roughly double what they could earn in the open markets). That doesn't include tax-credits that are given to some low-wage workers to offset the cost of paying payroll taxes.
The idea that Social Security is regressive is simply nuts.
According to the Trustees of the system, Social Security has a 20.5 trillion dollar shortfall (Page15 of the Trustees Report). We could shut the government down for 5 years, and the system would still not be actuarily sound.
It will raise tax dollars for Social Security that could have been raised to control the debt. Raising taxes to shore-up Social Security, is no different than putting your 401K contribution on your child's credit card.
As for pathetic, it has increased faster than CPI almost every year since 1960. What is pathetic is what you get for your money.
Here is what I have seen : CRS and CBO make the assumption that increasing taxes do not affect jobs. In their words behavoiral responses to higher taxes are difficult to assess. In my words, the research isn't credibile. Higher taxes cost jobs. Higher taxes also encourage high-wage earners to reconstruct their wage packages - or worse retire. These people are net contributors to the system. They pay more than they take.
You can't do math without variables. How many people make more than 106,000? How many fold?
As you raise the cap, you will increase future benefits you realize this of course so it isn't pure revene. Or is it that you plan to uncap the tax and then cap the benefits. That would be in your source material.
The 'surplus' largely resulted from capital gains of day traders caught-up in the internet bubble. I think Clinton actually 'balanced' the budget once - in that year cap gains taxes were roughly 600 billion. Much of those gains are subsequently tax loss carryforwards of buyers. This is what causes 100s of billions in lost revenue in the Bush years.
There are two factors in rising employment that you fail to mention. Once is Y2K work which was the largest public works project in history. It was responsible for massive wage inflation in the tech sector (where I worked). The other factor is the increase in consumer debt which is a major part of our economic problems today.
Clinton has distanced himself from the economic costs of the internet bubble so it isn't really reasonable to credit him for the gains. The consumer debt problem today stems from poor economic oversight in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years. So here is Clinton's economic mircle, create bubbles and pay for them with debt. That is just genius.
The prominent Democrat leader Tip O'neil was a champion of this. If the changes had been made then, we'd already be seeing HUGE positive results.
Instead, in the years 2000-2004, the Democratic led congress shot down even a partial privatisation that grandfathered-in all recipients who were already above 62 years of age. They then gave themselves a standing ovation, and pats on each others' backs all around. Pelosi and Reid, you suck-royally, and I'll throw in Durbin, Schumer, Leahy, Bernie Sanders, and others who have screwed-up Washington DC so badly, it may barely even be fixable at this point.
There needs to be more effort into examining those claims and bringing them to justice. But states say they don't have the money to pursue that. So, get rid of a few unneeded subsidies ...like agriculture and Big Oil... and turn that money over to states for more FBI investigations. Shut down a few overseas bases and turn that money over as well. There are ways to pursue solvency, but not with our dysfunctional Congress.
I cannot support Paul Ryan's plan, which can shift thousands of dollars of medical bills onto seniors who paid into the system for most of their lives, many now living at or below the poverty line. That is unconscionable.
That is an assumption, and probably not a sound one. As the system pays less to beneficiaries, Americans will have to take on a larger role in parental support. They will also see significantly reduced insurance benefits (25% - based on more generous assumptions). So you are assuming that people will pay the same price for less, when they have lower disposable income. That is like saying people will pay more if we only put 9 cans of beer in a 12 pack.
Actually you are more than willing. The only difference is that you are shifting the cost onto future seniors who you have no concern about. As benefits fall which you concede, the cost will affect even more seniors. You just don't want it to affect someone that you can see.
No one collects Social Security who did not contribute. There are people who collect survivor benefits but those are due from contributions that were made to Social Security.
The system is 20.5 trillion dollars short. That figure is more than has been collected by Social Security in all forms since its inception.
"SSI, Supplemental Security Income, is a federal welfare program and no contributions, from immigrants or citizens or anyone else, is required for eligibility."
The distinction isn't important because it just isn't that large in the big picture. According to the Social Security Administration, the system is short 20.5 trillion dollars. You can cut-off the entire government for 5 years, and it will not make Social Security sound.
They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake ...
They now have flexibility to pay down/off a home mortgage, or fund their child's college, or invest in that franchise business and create jobs.... Imagine that same couple 20 years later when their parents pass. Suddenly they have $400k or $500k in their lap. And with that, more opportunities are created. In Chile, the poverty rate in the 1960s was over 40% of the population. Today it’s around 7%... Recall the earthquake they had three months after Haiti. The Chile earthquake was 80x more powerful yet there were no calls for massive aid to go help Chile as there was for Haiti. The Chilean folks had the economic ability to solve their own problems.
The real problem is that it is not in the best interest of our bloated U.S. Gov't to wipe out poverty. Our politicians NEED poverty... they NEED crisis... and they have learned to "never let a good crisis go to waste".
If we didn't have poverty, we wouldn't need such an omnipotent Federal Gov't to "help us"...
The Chilean system didn't have 20.5 trillion in legacy costs.
The Chilean system covers about 2/3rds of the work force rather than the 96% that Social Security covers
Social Security's inflow does not cover the outflow of legacy costs. Switching systems will not fix the legacy costs. They will just come out of a different pocket.
The first step in any solution is honesty. We want to build an online audience that can push the discussion of reform into the public view on honest terms. I hope you join our FB community : http://www.facebook.com/FixSo... The value of groups is that it tells like-minded people that they are not alone.
Today opponents in the debate say pretty much whatever is convenient. Here is an example of dishonest debate : http://www.fixssnow.org/blog/... We can't solve a problem when it has thousands of versions.
What can you do is tell us where we are wrong. That is how the site grows. Tell your friends that the problem is now not 2033.
Second, every dime you paid into those systems would be paid back for you to invest tax free.
Third, end them.
While I understand there will be many who never paid a dime in that will need to be compensated, since they have no personal responsibility. There are plenty of useless cubical monkey jobs we could fill with those who have no personal responsibility.
If you are in the bracket that clearly states you are more than self-sufficient re. your own net worth, then you will have to take a lesser portion, if any at all, than those in your age bracket receive.
There are many ideas, and I have to believe there is a better system.