Ask Dems About Social Security

Cao Institute ^ | January 15, 2004 | Michael Tanner

[Little Bill]

Invest it at the average interest rate for the last 35 years and the amount is staggering, varies on contributions.

[jslade]

Besides, Fat Teddy and the rest of congress reach their cap half-way through the year. If I gotta pay the 12.4% on all my income, why not Teddy? (If we keep the system)

From what I understand, members of congress don't contribute anything at all to the SS system. Isn't that special! They have their own pension plan.

[leadpenny]

I wasn't sure on that. Thanks.

All the more reason to scrap the system.

[leadpenny]

I berate FDR all the time for starting us down the road to socialism, but in his defense (can't believe I'm saying that), the rate was 1% (2% combined) on the first $3,000 until 1950.

Years ago I remember reading how the cap was determined each year. In 2004 it is $87,900. The plan was/is to insure that the cap includes 94% of workers. That means that 6% of the workers will always make more than the cap. The philosophy is that if you removed the cap, the wealthy (the 6%) would stop supporting the system. Another reason to remove the cap. Remove it and the wealthy will help kill it off sooner.

[Dec31,1999]

Social Security is not only the largest U.S. government program, accounting for 23 percent of federal spending, it is the largest government program in the world.

What a waste of money and ambition. If I wait until 2022 when I can retire, I can collect 1600 a month according to today's estimates. That will pay for how much of my property taxes by then?

[Dec31,1999]

I have my own pension plan, but that still doesn't exempt me from paying.

[Kozak]

The cap is arbitrary and unfair to the middle class (me). I don't care what fat Teddy thinks.

No it's not. It's based on the fact that you can only see a maximum amount of benefit. If they remove the cap then you completely uncouple what you can benefit from what you payed in. That makes it welfare. Which by the way what Medicare now is. There is no way I am not being scammed on the amount I'm paying in compared to the benefit later.

[Kozak]

I berate FDR all the time for starting us down the road to socialism, but in his defense (can't believe I'm saying that), the rate was 1% (2% combined) on the first $3,000 until 1950.

Thats because A. the retirement age was set at 65 because YOU WERE UNLIKELY to live to that age, B there were 20 something workers for every retiree, and C it was meant to be a minimal income to keep you out of abject poverty, not something to retire to Florida on and play golf. But it was Ponzi scheme pure and simple. We are getting to the natural end of it, and it's not gonna be pretty.

[leadpenny]

It's based on the fact that you can only see a maximum amount of benefit.

That's not arbitrary? Some government entity arbitrarily (not you) sets the amounts they say you need?

If they remove the cap then you completely uncouple what you can benefit from what you payed in.

Fine, uncouple it. Means-test it. That's on the benefit side anyway. I'm talking about what we are forced to pay into the failed system. I take it you are OK with the following scenario:

Assume you make the cap or under ($87,900). A Hollywood actress/actor, radio talk-show host, MLB player, NFL player or coach, etc., etc., makes $8,790,000 per year. You pay 12.4% FICA and they pay .124% FICA. (if my math is right). If you are OK with that then I have nothing to argue about with you concerning the fairness of it all.

[leadpenny]

Put another way, you would be paying 100 times the rate they are.