Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Wealth Gap--The 'death tax' for the other 98 percent of us - Social Security
techcentralstation ^ | 02/19/2003 | David Boaz

Posted on 02/19/2003 6:15:53 AM PST by SJackson

A new study from the Federal Reserve says that the wealth gap between rich and poor grew wider as the stock market boomed in the late 1990s.

The most obvious reason is that more than half of all American families now own stocks either directly or indirectly -- but almost half don't. That means that when the stock market rises, the gap between the stock-owning half and the non-investing half rises.

How to close the wealth gap? Bring more Americans into the investor class and let them pass their hard-earned money onto their children.

President Bush's plan to let younger workers invest their Social Security taxes in stocks, bonds, or other private assets would do that. Social Security modernization would not just help all working Americans become investors, it would help end the Social Security death tax.

Pollsters are often mystified by the unpopularity of the estate tax -- lately renamed the "death tax." How, they ask, can so many people object to a tax that falls on only a few rich people? They have a point.

What everyone seems to have missed, though, is that there is a death tax that affects every working American. It's called Social Security.

Every year, every American worker pays 12.4 percent of his income to the Social Security system. Workers may not realize this because the money is taken out of their paychecks in advance. (That's what FICA means on your paycheck.) And half the tax is concealed by pretending that the employer pays it. But economists agree that a tax on wages ultimately comes out of the worker's pocket.

When a worker retires after paying 12.4 percent of wages for years, he gets a monthly Social Security check. The return isn't very good, but at least there's a check (so far). But look what happens when the worker dies: After paying in for all those years, the worker owns nothing. He can't leave anything to his children.

In short, Social Security imposes a 100 percent death tax on every working American. The money he "saved" all those years disappears.

And there's considerable money involved. Take a thirty-something couple earning $54,000 a year. Social Security promises to pay them about $27,000 a year (in today's dollars) when they retire -- if Social Security still has any money. But when they die, that income stops, and there's no estate to leave to their children. (Of course they may have saved other assets, but the Social Security assets would not survive them.)

On the other hand, if they had been putting those Social Security taxes into a retirement fund divided between stocks and bonds, they could expect to have nearly $1 million in their personal retirement account at retirement. That fund would pay them an annual income more than double what Social Security promises, and they would still have $1 million to leave to their children -- or their church or favorite charity -- at their deaths.

If that couple invested solely in stocks, though exposed to greater short-term risk, they could expect to have even more money -- $1.6 million. That's what the Social Security death tax costs a working couple. If they were allowed to put 12.4 percent of their income into real investments, they could accumulate as much as $1 million or more -- and the Social Security death tax takes it all.

Reform that would allow younger workers to put their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts would end the Social Security death tax -- the tax that hits every working American -- and dramatically narrow the wealth gap.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and editor of "Toward Liberty: The Idea That Is Changing the World."

This article first appeared FoxNews. com.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2003 6:15:53 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson; jwalsh07
I have NEVER heard this argument before. Really good stuff.
2 posted on 02/19/2003 6:21:42 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
It's even worse than Boaz says. The average age of death for an African-American male is less than 66, which means not collecting any Social Security at all.

In essence, Social Security is a subsidy from blacks to whites and Asians, because of their longer average lifespan.
3 posted on 02/19/2003 6:24:05 AM PST by Joe Bonforte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte
You wonder where the NAACP and the racial hucksters are when a real rip-off of Black America is going on.
4 posted on 02/19/2003 6:31:48 AM PST by gridlock (All we are saying, Is give war a chance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
How, they ask, can so many people object to a tax that falls on only a few rich people?

It is precisely because it falls on only a few people that it is unfair. Why don't we institute a 90% income tax on major league baseball players? They are almost all very rich, and there are fewer than a thousand of them. In fact, lets narrow it down to pitchers. Relief pitchers. Left-handed relief pitchers.

5 posted on 02/19/2003 6:35:27 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Huck
He is right. I would be retired now if I could have just invested my portion (6.7%) during my career.

IMO, Changes will never happen, the government will never attach funds to individual accounts which can be passed on to heirs. Over the last 50 years the Gov. has used our social security to start and fund massive welfare programs such as HUD, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, etc. by using SS revenues.

Now its time to pay the piper and we taxpayers will pay for our politicians gross mismanagement.

7 posted on 02/19/2003 6:38:03 AM PST by Tripleplay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: chicagogogal
Where did you get that 2% number from? Sources please.

Also you're forgetting there is an important principal invovled in privitizing S.S. : INDEPENDENCE! Sorry but the less money big daddy govt. can take from me is all the better as well.

9 posted on 02/19/2003 6:40:19 AM PST by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: chicagogogal
I said almost all were rich. The median salary for 14 of the teams is a million dollars or more. That means that as many players on that team are making more than that as are making less.
11 posted on 02/19/2003 6:47:32 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chicagogogal
"the only people that will be enriched by this scheme are the 'fund managers'. that's what it's really all about."

You miss the point. I'm sure Bush would prefer to allow individuals to invest as much of the 12% as they wish into such a private retirement fund. The low percentage is to satisfy the DEMOCRATS!!! Can you say INCREMENTALISM??

The key point is to make the breakthrough to establish the validity of the concept of such a private-based retirement fund instead of the socialist Ponzi game that is currently Social Security. Once established, the allowed percentage can be increased over time. After all, this tactic is exactly what the Democrats have been using for years to limit our freedom--why can't we use it to recover it.

12 posted on 02/19/2003 6:48:02 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
A new study from the Federal Reserve says that the wealth gap between rich and poor grew wider as the stock market boomed in the late 1990s.

And the gap grew narrower after the stock market tanked after March 2000.

There may be lot's of things better than the current Social Security system but stock market bubbles aren't one of them.

13 posted on 02/19/2003 6:48:11 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Good point, so when is SS going to be killed? It would be nice to be able to retire at a young age and just have a whole bunch of kids.
14 posted on 02/19/2003 6:49:15 AM PST by anobjectivist (The natural rights of people are more basic than those currently considered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chicagogogal
"depositing it in an account for you."

This is false. There is NO special govt. account for Kantianburke in the S.S. office. The money taken out of my paycheck is directed towards today's beneficiaries. Thats why most folks are confident in 40 years, but not now, S.S. will be bankrupt as the ratio of workers to payees will be unable to be balanced. Even though one would have paid into the system for so long.

15 posted on 02/19/2003 6:51:46 AM PST by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joe Bonforte; SJackson; gridlock
"It's even worse than Boaz says. The average age of death for an African-American male is less than 66, which means not collecting any Social Security at all."

Maybe a payroll tax cut would be in order if those affected by this would stop complaining about government giveaways and start complaining about government TAKEaways!

16 posted on 02/19/2003 6:56:24 AM PST by d14truth (A voice against the war on terror is a voice for terror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: chicagogogal
Ah. My mistake. I thought you were referring to S.S. as it stands now. However that said, at least the account would be MINE; to do with as I please once I retire. In a perfect world the govt would not be involved in this period but like a previous poster commented, its all about incrementalism.
18 posted on 02/19/2003 6:59:06 AM PST by KantianBurke (The Federal govt should be protecting us from terrorists, not handing out goodies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: joemurphy
Why is health care so expensive though? There are heavy restrictions on health care by the government, and also ridiculous insurance costs because of unrealistic court cases that get through.
20 posted on 02/19/2003 7:02:50 AM PST by anobjectivist (The natural rights of people are more basic than those currently considered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson