Posted on 03/03/2005 7:27:05 PM PST by Conservative Firster
As much as I hate to say it, it sure looks like Bush's plan for private accounts within the hideous Social Security system are in trouble. The campaign waged by the Democrats and their AARP sycophants has worked. Young people haven't shown any excitement over the idea of actually owning a portion of their own Social Security retirement accounts, and old folks have -- as we surely must have known they would -- fallen for the Democratic scare tactics that their benefits would be in jeopardy if younger people got private accounts.
Democrats, with no small amount of help from Republicans, are now going to push something called "add-on" accounts. The concept is this: You leave Social Security as it is, but tack on something over and above Social Security. You create a new program of government-subsidized privately owned retirement savings accounts. The idea will be sold to the American people this way: You take a certain percentage of your earnings, after you've already paid your Social Security taxes, and put that money into a retirement account which you own. The government will then match whatever you put into that retirement account. That, of course, constitutes a spending program. Where does the government get that money? More deficit spending, of course. You really don't think they're going to cut some program somewhere in order to come up with the funds, do you?
OK .. Now let me tell you what else is going to happen. I'm setting myself up for a huge "I told you so" at some point down the road. As soon as these "add-on" accounts are established liberals are going to start whining that it's just not fair because poor people don't have enough money left over to invest in their private accounts. The solution will be obvious. People in lower income brackets will become eligible for full government funding of their add-on retirement account. It will be a straight, pure income redistribution payment ... from those who have to those who have not. This is no problem for our politicians because they've been operating under the concept that income is distributed, not earned for decades.
In the meantime ... I would just love to hear from some of your crotchety old farts today on the show. Tell me why you're so damned dead set against the idea of your grandchildren owning a portion of their own Social Security retirement accounts. Come on ... give me a call. I'd live to hear it.
Why would a person pay income taxes on the half that he or she put in. We did not get to deduct it from our income tax, the part the employer paid should be taxed.
Am I wrong?
If you're sick of paying into it, there are a few American government employers that will let you out. You have to work for the man, but it's worth it to know that your retirement money is yours, not the Democrats.
For instance, in a three-county area on the Texas coast, government employees' retirement benefits that do NOT come from SS, and they don't pay into it.
Knowing you'll get that money back instead of finding the government changed its mind and decided to pay off the guy who got to the cookie jar first, that's worth a lot.
You can also work outside the U.S. for a few years. All your extraterritorial income up to about 70K is tax free, and some countries have compacts with the U.S., compacts that will allow you to get any money you pay into their retirement systems as part of THEIR income or social security taxes back in CASH.
"Anyway, I would be willing to sacrifice the last 20 years worth of SS contributions for the ability to opt out of the system today."
My thoughts exactly!!! It's not like the money is there to give back anyway... I don't want my kids to be scammed and taxed into poverty and dependence as we are - it'll only get worse unless it's stopped - NOW!
Actually, you didn't pay into anything, because your money was used the instant it left your hands. SS isn't a retirement system. No one pays into anything. You funded the retirement of the elderly.
You earned it up to a point. After that point, you didn't earn it. I don't know exactly where you are in the schedule. But mathematically, if you live long enough, there comes a point where the money you have been paid by SS exceeds the amount of money you put into it plus a reasonable rate of return you could have expected from such a riskless investment/pension/whatever.
Do old people really not understand that?
I don't think most folks understand this. It's true and it's the real reason the rats are so upset about private accounts--private accounts reduce the flow of SS taxes going to the government and put them in private accounts instead.
Currently, when SS taxes come in, the government immediately borrows those taxes from the trust fund and spends them, leaving an IOU. When the boomers retire and congress goes to the pantry to pay their SS, a big pile of IOU's from congress will fall out. You can thank LBJ and the great society for that abomination.
And that's also why increasing the SS taxes will do nothing to improve the solvency of Social Security. The increased revenues will just be borrowed and spent. The result, a bigger pile of IOU's in the pantry.
No offense my friend, but your priorities are backwards.
If you are stealing from your children to support your parents -- who can support themselves, then the whole situation is upside down.
You need to get a grip on your life and tell your folks they are on their own. The job of parents is to take care of their kids. That is your #1 priority until your parents become totally inferim.
It is unfair of you to toss your kids' well being away to your, by your description, selfish parents.
I don't believe this is true. My folks paid social security taxes all their life. Had that money been invested, they would be earning a lot more on it than they are getting. My wife's mom would be destitute without it.
I really think all the talk on this thread ignores a real and serious point: Substantial portions of two generations of Americans planned their retirement based on having Social Security. Yes, it was a bad program and yes the demographics of the baby bust give it the effect of a ponzi scheme. But it's a fact that folks have planned their lives around. So cut 'em a little slack.
There's no easy way out of this one that doesn't hurt folks. The boomers are going to get a lot less in real dollars than they have planned for and they are going to have to work for many years longer than any previous generation.. And, the X'ers and Y'ers are going to have to pay some of it--they will end up taking care of their parents thru social security or privately.
It's a lousy fix we are in as a society and we owe it all to our friendly neighborhood socialists and their fawning media lap dogs who refused to tell the truth about social security for 70 years (none of this is new or surprising to folks who have followed it for a while). W is trying to undo seventy years of expectations built by a program that would have worked (albeit badly from a rate of return viewpoint) had the birth control pill and abortion not come along. It isn't going to be fixed by throwing my wife's mom on the street--the votes aren't there.
"And, the X'ers and Y'ers are going to have to pay some of it--they will end up taking care of their parents thru social security or privately."
We Gen X'ers are getting screwed in many ways the older generation did not. We pay higher taxes, have to compete for employment with an immigrant pool willing to take traditionally well paying jobs at less than livable wage salaries, and are being told it is our duty to pay for this because of a false expectation.
SS was never meant to be a retirement plan. Don't you think that it is a problem when many many social security recipients get more per month in benefits than many working people? Its a complete farse and scheme that has been perpretrated against people and is causing more havoc as people live longer and longer.
No one wants to throw anyone in street. That is typical liberal hyperbole. The fact that is those demanding the most paid in the least. They paid in less in both real dollars as well as a percentage of their income.
Why is it that someone should automatically be able collect at 62 y/o? There is plenty of employment these people can take without having to entirely rely on the system and cry and demand more from us younger people just trying to have our life the way they had theirs.
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.