Senate Newcomer Leads Social Security Deal

AP ^

[jackbill]

Little Mr. Graham can take his "lifting the cap to $200K" and shove it where the sun don't shine.

First, it would impose a crushing blow to the economy.

Second, many high income employees - lawyers, engineers, scientists, etc., would just make a deal with their employer. They would quit their jobs, start a sub-chapter S corporation, sign a contract with their former employer, take a $50K salary and the rest in dividends - on which they pay no FICA.

Third, it is Marxist.

[NorCalRepub]

fine......but I look at "mavericks" as those that go against the grain all the time.......I don't see him doing this at all.......and you are only speculating about his motives.......you dont' know for sure that he is an opportunist and no, being for conservative principles per se in not necessarily the party line but on the other hand, I'm willing to listen to others views regardless of party. Sometimes the best break throughs in history have come from those that brought ideas outside the lines.....I"m always willing to listen......I may not agree, but I'll listen

[knarf]

"Recall that Clinton actually proposed personal accounts as a means of "saving Social Security". However, in his model, it was the Washington bureaucrats and politicians who would decide how (and where) the money was to be invested."

Hmmmmmm ... I didn't really understand the x42's plan.
But ...
Couldn't/wouldn't the gov't 'fund' become (sooner rather than later?) enough to eliminate SS taxes entirely?

Or am I being naively idealistic?

Synopsizing;
Govt takes money and invests it's entirety
said 'fund' grows to point where SS taxes are no longer neccesary,
wage earner has already been 'allowed' to 'privatize'
True retirement incomes are realized.

[Soul Seeker]

but I look at "mavericks" as those that go against the grain all the time

Well then tell that to the press. They've dubbed McCain a maverick and he plays both sides of the aisle.

and you are only speculating about his motives.......you dont' know for sure that he is an opportunist

And you are giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is sincere, you don't know that for sure either. I'll stand by my assessment. You can stand by yours.

being for conservative principles per se in not necessarily the party line

No, nor did I ever say it was. Hence disagreement over immigration.

I'm willing to listen to others views regardless of party.

Right...

His idea is pretty simple. Make the citizens pay for the politicians in Washington stealing money that didn't belong to them in the first place. No. I fully acknowledge fixing S.S. will require some pain but I'm not going to tolerate further taxes that they will just abuse the way they did the money originally earmarked for Social security. It's a bad idea that will backfire on the American people, the administration, and conservatives in general. The only ones that will benefit are the Dems and the Reps LIKE Graham that are trying to make this reality.

I am not changing my opinion on Graham or this scheme.

[goldstategop]

As long as higher payroll taxes go to Personal Retirement Accounts, I think its a reasonable trade-off. The money saved is ours to keep, which the government can never take away. We'd be at least see our taxes put away for tomorrow, instead of being spent for today. So I'll willing to consider breaking with the no tax increase orthodoxy in exchange for a larger goal - weening us from complete dependency on the Ponzi Scheme called Social Security. Whether the Democrats are willing to make a deal is an open question. At least they can't claim we aren't willing to pay for it or that we want to add to the deficit.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[okie01]

Couldn't/wouldn't the gov't 'fund' become (sooner rather than later?) enough to eliminate SS taxes entirely?

I suppose it's theoretically possible. The gummint could build enough equity in the sum to a.) fund the forthcoming shortfall with the profits and b.) return the principal to the taxpayers, then c.) let Social Security "wither on the vine", to coin a phrase.

The problem I would have with that is that, if it is the gummint's stated intention to undertake this approach, then it is also they who should have the responsibility for the investment decisions. They can't assign that responsibility to anybody else because, then, there would be no accountability.

And letting the government make those investment decisions would be a gold-plated invitation to corruption and abuse.

As it now is with Social Security and personal accounts, the ideal would be to eventually incrementalize our way to 100% of the tax being in "personal accounts". At that point, the government can begin stepping away from the whole issue and we can become responsible for our own affairs.

[Ethrane]

Go ahead...raise the cap.

As a business owner and physician, I'm here to tell you that I will do whatever necessary to NOT pay the increase out of my pocket...even if that means I have to fire employees to recoup the difference, or look at every other legal means of ensuring my investment in the business is protected.

I've had it with the socialist BS...I already take care of seniors for $0.20 on the dollar, and pay enough in SS taxes now.

[Ethrane]

Go ahead...raise the cap.

As a business owner and physician, I'm here to tell you that I will do whatever necessary to NOT pay the increase out of my pocket...even if that means I have to fire employees to recoup the difference, or look at every other legal means of ensuring my investment in the business is protected.

I've had it with the socialist BS...I already take care of seniors for $0.20 on the dollar, and pay enough in SS taxes now.

[Ethrane]

sorry for the "double"...

[auboy]

According to AP, Graham said:

Graham suggests raising that cap, perhaps to $200,000, to make up some of the money that personal accounts would drain from the system. At the current Social Security tax rate of 6.2 percent, a $200,000 cap would mean someone with that income would be paying an additional $6,820 a year in taxes.

1. I question anything from AP.
2. Most of the $6,820 goes to keep the SS slush fund of the politicians up to the level at which they have grown accustomed.
3. This sounds a lot like class warfare (it's for the common good - it takes a village - they've got more, they should pay more, etc.).

I am over 55. I do not even come close to approaching the $90,000 plateau currently used. I do think citizens under 55 should have the right to choose a plan like the one Congress and government employees have been under for many years.

Here's an idea for you and your cohorts in Washington, Senator Graham. Quit dipping so deeply into the "locked box" to fund pork barrel projects and failed programs. The IOUs for wasting our money need to stop.

[libertarianben]

I have no problem with someone who goes against the party line but I do have a problem with someone who goes against the principals that they say they're for. People respect others honesty, even if they don't agree with them. Sen Graham is my senator and he will lose my vote on his election for this. No I'm not going to vote for the democrats, couldn't live with myself.

[NonLinear]

Here's an idea for you and your cohorts in Washington, Senator Graham. Quit dipping so deeply into the "locked box" to fund pork barrel projects and failed programs. The IOUs for wasting our money need to stop.

The problem is that the IOUs are no good. There is no bank account, savings fund, from which the IOU will be paid. The money was taken from the "locked box" and spent. The only place the IOU can be paid from is from our taxes in some future year. The game our senators and representatives have been playing is that "some future year" should be delayed as long as possible, so someone else gets the blame when the box is opened and found to be empty.

Or should I say the box is full of chits?

[auboy]

No wonder Gore said he would keep it "locked".