Poll: Make wealthy pay for Social Security (two thirds of adults)

CNN ^ | Feb. 8, 2005 | CNN

[Brilliant]

It's enough to make you glad you're not wealthy--or wish you weren't.

[Raycpa]

I'd also support repealing the (regressive) payroll tax and funding the payments out of general revenues.

You are misinformed. It is no more a regressive tax than making contributions to your IRA are regressive taxes. SS is a government sponsored retirement program.

[ThinkDifferent]

Maybe we should also get rid of Income Tax and go for sales taxes

Absolutely: fairtax.org.

[ShowMeMom]

I agree with Rush Limbaugh: If you really believe that other people should should support you in your retirement, then try going down the street, knocking on doors and asking your neighbors who are still working to each chip in 100 bucks a month.

See how that works out.

[Toddsterpatriot]

i also heard on a different show this morning, that if a person in their 20's got on the program most discussed and the economy stayed the way it is (or close to it)--that person would have 1 million dollars accumulated by the time they retired---sorry, I didn't hear what age they had them retiring at---

A few years ago I calculated what your contributions would be if you had earned up to the income cap. I did it going back 45 years, so a 20 year old who worked 45 years and retired in 2000 if he earned 9% (less than the S&P 500 over that period) would have over $800,000 just based on his half of the contributions. At that time the maximum benefit was $17,000/year.

And if you die, your heirs get basically zip. Good deal? I think not.

[Raycpa]

I'm a CPA. Many CPA's think everyone else is an idiot with money. Especially those who clearly earn far more than they do. At heart, most are a very insecure group.

[chudogg]

ummm... The higher tax bracket is only applied to the income that is over that amount.

[savedbygrace]

The poll question was: If you could get other people to pay for your retirement, so you would get free checks each month for the rest of your life, would you do it?

[ThinkDifferent]

SS is a government sponsored retirement program.

Nope, it's just another tax. You don't have an account, and the government is under no obligation to provide you with any benefits. There are several Supreme Court rulings on this.

And if it *were* a retirement program, it would be a spectacularly bad one for today's workers.

[longtermmemmory]

Push Poll 100% certain.

The democrat party is TERRIFIED!

I have NEVER seen this kind of fear. FNC had a montage of the democrats ripping the Budget and attack president bush.

Then there was Rangal's meltdown on Hanity.


Seriously how can the MSM still prop these looneys up?

[tfecw]

hmmm...that makes sense :) maybe i won't turn down promotions. Okay who am i kidding. I'd storm in the office thinking "just say no" and the first thing that would come out of my mouth is "Wow, thanks!"

[John Lenin]

SS is the least of our problems, when you consider a heart bypass surgery costs about 45k or other surgeries costing almost as much, SS is peanuts compared to what Medicare is going to cost. I suggest we go easy on the immigration issue it will prolong the implosion that much longer. And the weasel politicians who say we don't have a problem coming up should be voted out of office in their next election.

[Soul Seeker]

This poll is junk.

I want to see the wording of these questions.

[longtermmemmory]

I think the SS reform is being used as a demonstration proving ground for the much harder medicare reform.

[FITZ]

A coworker was ranting like that --- claiming Social Security would be in great shape if Bush hadn't spent it all on his wars and other programs. Insisting that privitization would be the worst thing possible --- which made no sense --- I asked --- why would it be so bad if the government will just steal it like you just said it did?

One thing about liberals --- they cannot be consistent because they're just parroting what they're told, half the time they don't even know what they're saying.

[Raycpa]

Nope, it's just another tax. You don't have an account, and the government is under no obligation to provide you with any benefits. There are several Supreme Court rulings on this.

Legally, yes there is no future obligation, however the current law provides for a benefit based on contributions. Politically, there is an obligation which will require the benefit promised to be paid.

Saying its a regressive tax is far removed from reality unless you make the claim that some future congress is going to fully repeal the promised benefits.

[Cobra64]

What is your's or anyone's, definition of wealth?

[longtermmemmory]

Remember also, everyone earning $100,000.00 is now rich. This is PER HOUSEHOLD.

In ratspeak, if you are not on the dole then you are too rich. (your glass is too big)

[Soul Seeker]

I'd agree.

The MSM pushed these polls during the election and were shown to be slanted in most instances. Now we're to trust them about S.S.? haha. No.

I find it very interesting that the general questions asked, along with the percentage of response, fit so well with the intentions of the article and the Dems Party.

[ShowMeMom]

And the weasel politicians who say we don't have a problem coming up should be voted out of office in their next election.

Damn straight!

In the meantime we need to write/call/email/generally harass the chicken Republicans into getting with the privatization program. It's the first baby step toward dismantling the the socialism that been inflicted upon this country since the 40's!