Posted on 03/04/2023 4:22:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind
In his N.Y. Times op-ed (Feb. 28, 2023), columnist Paul Krugman admitted that Social Security is indeed not like a pension plan, but rather incorporates significant wealth transfers from higher- to lower-income participants.
The thing about Social Security is that from the beginning it was designed to encourage misconceptions. It looks, on casual inspection, like a giant version of a private pension plan. You pay into such a plan during your working years, contributing to a pension fund, and when you retire you receive payments from that fund in proportion to the amount you put in. ...
I'm pretty sure that it was set up to look like an ordinary pension fund because that made it politically easier to sell. But in reality, Social Security has never been run like a private pension plan.
He makes the further observation:
I get a lot of mail from people saying that we should simply eliminate the upper limit on the payroll tax. That would certainly raise a lot of money. But bear in mind that there's no fundamental reason Social Security has to be financed with payroll taxes — we only do it that way because back in 1935, F.D.R.'s advisers thought it would be a good idea to dress Social Security up to look like a private pension fund.
Republicans should take good notes, because Krugman has outlined a line of attack that they could use for reforming entitlement programs.
Replace Social Security with Personal Treasury Accounts
If you don't like what is being said about reforming Social Security, then change the conversation. Instead, let's talk about replacing Social Security with Personal Treasury Accounts.
The greatest myth sustaining the widespread popularity and legitimacy of Social Security is that recipients are simply getting back what they paid into it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Each of these options is off the table because Trump, McConnell, and McCarthy know they are election-year kryptonite.
Krugman is a fraud and Communist.
Government spending needs to be cut but why? So Big Business is relieved of corporate tax burden here in the USA?
In Canada the Crony Capitalists enjoy the 15 percent rate is that what this “reform of Social Security” is about?
With Romney in the room I say Yes, Yes and Yes.
RE: Krugman is a fraud and Communist.
Yes, but do you agree with his observations about Social Security?
The problem with social security is giving benefits to people than never paid into the system.
Fuk them.
That is for Charity.
Democrats think I owe them something because the are alive.
I owe them nothing. I will help the poor, but do NOT demand by force my charity.
RE: The problem with social security is giving benefits to people than never paid into the system.
That is why we need a PERSONAL TREASURY ACCOUNT for each Tax-paying Contributor as proposed in this article.
Below is a brief outline of the Personal Treasury Account (PTA) program:
The current level of Social Security payroll taxes paid by each taxpayer would be deposited into a separate personal account owed directly to the taxpayer upon retirement instead of being credited to the Social Security Trust Fund.
The taxpayer would own shares in a U.S. Treasury Mutual Fund that is managed by the Treasury secretary. Payroll tax collections would be used to purchase Treasury Bonds.
Upon reaching a minimum retirement age, PTA owners have the option to withdraw an amount of money from their PTA, not to exceed a maximum amount based upon their expected remaining lifespan.
When the PTA owner dies, then he would transfer his remaining PTA balance to the PTA of named, eligible beneficiaries.
I think you might be surprised at the support for removing the maximum cutoff for high wage earners. I bet it would poll at 80%ish.
You miss the point.
Democrats dominate our politics because they allow
non-producers to tax the schiff out of producers.
Why should I bother at that point?
I just worked up my 2022 taxes. I pay taxes, and over 50%
of our population doesn’t.
Fuk y’all.
RE: Democrats dominate our politics because they allow
non-producers to tax the schiff out of producers.
Again, I stick to my point in the light of your observation.
PTA’s have the following advantages:
1) Take Control Away from Politicians
Unlike Social Security, the PTA avoids all the budgetary pitfalls of changes in life expectancy, retirement age, and benefit payouts that accompany all defined benefit pension plans like Social Security. Because the PTA is a defined contribution plan, the PTA owner receives whatever he earned instead of whatever politicians in Washington decide to give him.
Taxpayers would be shielded from budgetary trauma of changes in life expectancy, benefit formulas, and retirement age that politicians manipulate to win votes without regard to fiscal consequences in the future.
2) It Will Appeal to Young Voters
Republicans could champion the PTA to attract young voters who hear doomsday stories about Social Security not being around when they retire. Knowing that the PTA is their personal property that cannot be arbitrarily decreased or revoked is preferable to the uncertainty and opaque machinations of Social Security.
3) Address Unfairness of Differences in Life Expectancy
The Social Security Administration bases its monthly payout formulas on remaining life expectancy at ages 62 to 70. Recipients receive a life annuity of a fixed amount that stops when you die. If you take your first Social Security distribution at age 65 and then die one year later, then your heirs receive nothing.
If you want producers to keep more of their own money, I can’t think of a better way to move towards that direction.
Any attempt to tamper with this PTA system in place will be politically suicidal.
We have to start somewhere because the alternative is exactly WHAT YOU ALREADY are raging about PLUS — INSOLVENCY.
I can survive insolvency.
Gets rid of Democrats.
Bring it on.
Would employers also contribute into this fund?
RE: Would employers also contribute into this fund?
Those details can be sorted out. But this is the general idea.
But you repeat yourself.
What about the current retirees? You do know that current workers pay for current retirees. Talk about the debt going to 60 trillion if we follow your path.
We could calculate a PHASE IN SYSTEM FOR THE PTA’s.
Over 50 years, the PTA would eventually replace Social Security until no more payroll taxes are credited to the Social Security Trust Fund.
The simplest approach would be to exclude workers who have already paid into Social Security and then introduce the PTA solely to new workers. This proposal would have the least beneficial fiscal impact in the short term, but it would remove the long-term fiscal threats posed by the current system, and it would arouse the least opposition.
Once in place, politicians could use momentum from the popularity of the PTA to expand participation to workers who have already contributed to Social Security, and thereby obtain additional cost reductions in Social Security.
Social Security wouldn’t be a problem if the Democrats hadn’t stolen all the money out of it for social programs and replaced it with a bunch of IOU’s.
I’m cool with raising the rate and the cap, since I no longer work. As long as it means more money for ME, what’s the downside?
How about the employee contributions go into a PTA and the employer share goes to a general pool to pay current retirees.
If self-employed, it all goes to a PTA.
Yup.
Sounds like 401K’s without the employer contributions.
I thought 401K’s were going to save people’s retirements.
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.