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

Bush seems to be moving in a slightly better direction on this front than he was when I wrote this piece (he seems to be ruling out benefit cuts/tax increases/lifting the cap), but I still think the conventional thinking on this is distorted. While I support truly free market plans like the one proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Sununu, I can't understand why any proposed reform would not include making the system voluntary.

I'm interested in hearing what people think about this. Does this strike anyone else as being something worth fighting for?

1 posted on 05/02/2005 1:42:32 PM PDT by TwoDragons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: TwoDragons

It's definitely something worth fighting for, and I'd drop out in about .0001 second if given the choice.

The problem is how to pay Social InSecurity benefits for those who wish to remain in the system, and especially for those who have built up a large "investment" in the program.

Could you flesh out those ideas a bit?

D


2 posted on 05/02/2005 1:50:26 PM PDT by daviddennis (;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

Fat Teddy and other dims are already on record as having opposed letting their constituents who are fed employees opt out of sosh security , let alone the rest of us ordinary
folks


3 posted on 05/02/2005 1:51:21 PM PDT by Rakkasan1 (The MRS wanted to go to an expensive place to eat so I took her to the gas station.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

I love the idea!


4 posted on 05/02/2005 1:53:22 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons
I can't understand why any proposed reform would not include making the system voluntary.

As with private accounts, the Democrats will squeal because in essence both are in present times a tax cut of massive proportions. Think of all the money congress has pilfered out of Social Security and spent through the general fund and replaced with IOU's. BTW - I prefer either to the robbery taking place today.

5 posted on 05/02/2005 1:56:34 PM PDT by IamConservative (To worry is to misuse your imagination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons
Why not let Americans drop out of Social Security?

Gaaahhh!!! But how would we suck money from the rich?!?

:-)
6 posted on 05/02/2005 1:58:54 PM PDT by Roots (www.GOPatUCR.com - - College Republicans at the University of California, Riverside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

"Why not let Americans drop out of Social Security?"


I have always believed we could drop out of SS whenever we wanted.

I've heard of several people who say they already have opted out .. so why is this supposed to be "something new".


7 posted on 05/02/2005 2:05:50 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

Hey I wonder. I'm glad I never had a chance to opt out. The return that I get from what I paid into SS are fabulous. I got all my money back pretty quickly and it's still coming. Don't see how any private plan could have improved on this return. BTW It's not the power of compound interest, it's the power of inflation that got my money back so quickly.


8 posted on 05/02/2005 2:08:09 PM PDT by ex-snook (Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

I can't focus on anything about the SS debate until the dangerous idea that Bush recently advanced -- to limit benefits to the wealthiest people -- is destroyed and discarded. This is exactly how socialism creeps forward.

First they say only the "very wealthiest few" will be paying into a system, but not eligible for benefits. There are so few people affected, and those don't really expect to be reliant on these benefits anyway, that there is a chorus of support from the huge majority who will benefit from this changem and it goes forward. Gradually, a combination of inflation and explicit redefinitions which add "just a few more people" to the list of give-but-don't-getters, and politically palatable new laws exempting "the very poorest" from paying in, while still being eligible for benefits (and that definition is, of course, regularly redefined to make sure nobody has to start paying because inflation put their wealth or income over the threshold) results in the system becoming more and more a straight take from the rich and give to the poor scheme.

At any given time, so few people are being added to the list of those getting screwed, that there is never sufficient political opposition to stop the next step of the creep. But it just keeps creeping forward until a huge percentage of the population is in the getting screwed category. Medicare is already in the universal getting screwed mode on the front end -- since there is no limit on the amount of income that is subject to the Medicare tax, higher earners pay a whole lot more, but aren't entitled to any greater benefits. Just wait -- it won't be a whole lot longer before we're hearing that in order to keep Medicare solvent, it will be necessary to remove just "the very wealthiest" from eligibility for benefits.


9 posted on 05/02/2005 2:14:00 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

Democrat leadership will tell you that to allow some to opt out will 'drastically increase the deficit due to the lack of inflow through FICA taxes' ... and you realize of course that FICA taxes are dumped into a 'general fund' from which the democrats have proven they will fund every new program they can get passed into law. The only real solution is to return FICA taxes to a separate accounting and reduce spending! But of course, politicians of both parties will not address that reality since they spend YOUR tax dollars to empower their re-election.


10 posted on 05/02/2005 2:19:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons
If Bush were to push the FairTax as part of the solution it would eliminate the pretense that Social Security is a repayment of a taxpayers involuntary contributions. Social Security has always been an excuse for taking money from productive workers so that the government can spend it.
11 posted on 05/02/2005 2:24:00 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons

Agreed. Make social security voluntary. It is simple and easy to sell. Democrats arguing against a voluntary social security plan will be exposed as the dependency-creating socialists they are.


14 posted on 05/02/2005 3:57:19 PM PDT by Jibaholic (The facts of life are conservative - Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TwoDragons
Opting out is a great idea. I assume we stop paying those receiving Social Security, and those due to receive it.
19 posted on 05/02/2005 4:14:07 PM PDT by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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