Posted on 03/07/2005 10:19:16 AM PST by crushkerry
We're not huge fans of Nebraska RINO, and 2008 Presidential Contender, Senator Chuck Hagel. However, he deserves credit for coming out with a proposal for Social Security reform that sounds, believe it or not, pretty conservative.
Surprisingly the proposal being offered by Hagel is fairly similar to the proposals outlined by President Bush. Hagel's plan recognizes the populace's longer life expectancy and would raise the retirement age to 68, and would raise the retirement age to 68, and reduce benefits for anyone retiring before that age.
More importantly, he is proposing that workers under 45 be permitted to divert up to 4% of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, but with the caveat that future benefits for those people would be reduced.
The only real difference with the President's proposals are that the age requirement for setting up personal accounts is lowered to 45, rather than 55. We don't know how the White House is going to respond to this, but it seems here that the GOP and conservatives have to "compromise" to get a bill, this would be the way to go, rather than to increase the income cap on payroll taxes, or silly "add-on" accounts. Again, this is just a first impression of the Hagel plan. I'm not an actuary who can tell you if lowering the age will do anything for the overall solvency of the system.
Politically this is smart because a good many people in the 45-55 age bracket are uncertain as to whether personal accounts would benefit them. In Hagel's plan those that are over 45 will have their fears allayed that social security won't "be there" for them. Yes, there are many in that age range who will be mad they can't get a personal account, but they may have to be sacrificed for getting personal accounts. Plus, the guess here is that there are more people in that age range leery of personal accounts than are in favor of them.
Hagel also does one better than the White House in making sure that people know his plan is "voluntary". The White House has the same idea in mind, but doesn't say it enough. Some people like the idea of personal accounts in general, but are, for a number of reasons, a bit leery of them because they think they have to open one up if reform becomes a reality. They need to be reassured that if they aren't comfortable with the idea, they can stick with the current system (bad as it is).
So let's give credit to Senator Hagel where it's due. Instead of a foolish compromise like an "add-on", or a tax increase like one floated by Lindsay Graham, Hagel seems to have actually staked out a reasonably conservative position on this issue, and deserves to be lauded for it.
Actually the bottom 50% pay about 3.6% of the total income taxes collected. My daughter had a gross income of $60,000 and paid more in FICA than income taxes.
Maybe that actually saves money.
If I'm getting $700/mo for waiting until I'm 67, and I live until my life expectancy of 75, that's $67,200 (8 yrs x 12 months x $700)
If I get $400/mo for starting at age 62, that's $62,400 (13 x 12 x $400).
The longer we live, the more money that option may save.
(Those dollar figures were total guesses, admittedly. If the lower benefit is 80% of the full payout, then the numbers would be radically different than for my 57% shown above))
I take it you're for slavery reparations too? Your reasoning says you should be. Oh, wait a minute, that would mean taking even more of your tax dollars, so you have to be against it. But, if your father or grandfather did something wrong, surely you should be held liable for it, right? Oh, wait a minute, that would be hard on you personally; no way you would agree to it. Are you sure you're not a Democrat at heart?
A couple of you have indicated that the older folks are the problem, not the career politicians that hid what they were doing for so long in order to subjugate the People in general. I find it interesting how you are so ready to shove it up others backsides if it means something better for you, but you are also so set against the same type thing happening to yourselves. I happen to be one of the group that president Bush indicated might be either left alone or even come out not as good as others (52 and those already 55 would be protected at the same rate, while I may be in a group that actually has benefits cut and there's not much time to make up for it under a system where I might only be able to invest 2-4%. Never the less, I am all for reform because it is the best thing for the country in general. Of course, hearing some supposed "conservatives" so willing to have others retirement years turned upside down if it will benefit their own whiney asses gives me pause.
A couple of you have indicated that the older folks are the problem, not the career politicians that hid what they were doing for so long in order to subjugate the People in general. I find it interesting how you are so ready to shove it up others backsides if it means something better for you, but you are also so set against the same type thing happening to yourselves. I happen to be one of the group that president Bush indicated might be either left alone or even come out not as good as others (52 and those already 55 would be protected at the same rate, while I may be in a group that actually has benefits cut and there's not much time to make up for it under a system where I might only be able to invest 2-4%. Never the less, I am all for reform because it is the best thing for the country in general. Of course, hearing some supposed "conservatives" so willing to have others retirement years turned upside down if it will benefit their own whiney asses gives me pause.
Hagel should have the guts to go ahead and make it official and change his affiliation to the Democrat party. We don't need RINO's like him. He is an embarassment to Nebraska.
Your reply reeks of a Dim-style rhetoric. if you wish to criticize, criticize with substance instead of platitudes. Perhaps you had trouble understanding my line of logic; if so, I would be happy to explain it sentence-by-sentence, if you want to feed me the hard to understand parts.
Please do explain my "poor reading comprehension", I'm curious about how you made the leap to that conclusion.
Ahhh, why bother. As uncle Izzy used to say, "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
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.