Posted on 05/06/2005 7:19:39 AM PDT by Raycpa
Freerepublic is a place to generate ideas and have them tested. My proposal is designed to leverage current laws in a way that will yield the same result Pres. Bush is attempting to attain. I would like freeper input and freeper exposure because this idea may unlock the current impasse.
Here goes. The Bush proposal is to establish private accounts for retirement and to redirect Social Security tax money for retirement dollars.
We already have private accounts for retirement. We really don't need new ones. They are called IRA's, 401(k)'s and 403B"s. All that is needed is to remove current restrictions on them that limit contributions as to amount.
We also have a way to redirect tax moneys for retirement but it is currently limited. Currently, lower paid people are entitled to an income tax credit for making IRA and 401K contributions of up to 50%. (IRC 258) We can expand this credit to be available for all income levels.
In order to make the credit "revenue neutral", in exchange for the credit, each person would elect to lower the amount that they are credited for Social Security by the amount of the credit.
For example, I decide to contribute $1,000 to my IRA. I then receive a $500 credit on my income tax. The amount of my contribution to SS is then reduced by $500. I still have the same amount of SS tax deducted from my pay, only when I get my annual statement from SS it will show that the credit for contributions paid has been reduced by $500.
From a political point of view, the tools are already there to accomplish this change. We would not be changing Social security as it stands now. We would be providing an incentive to people to increase their personal retirement contributions.
In fact by requiring a certain amount of matching (ie the credit is less than 100%), the system would encourage more savings than Pres. Bush's proposal.
The SS tax rates stay the same. The benefits stay the same. People save more. Simple and clean.
Suppose you're self-employed and making 80K a year, net of Schedule C expenses. Your SS tax is approx. $10360 and, after Form 1040 deductions, your income tax is something on the order of $11800, total $22160 or thereabouts.
If I've read your proposal correctly, you generate a 50% tax credit for deposits into qualified retirement accounts. OK, fine. You deposit 45K of capital into such an account and your tax bill for the year is now wiped out. Oh, you lose whatever increment -- DOWN THE ROAD -- that you might get from the SS Ponzischeme, but in return, assuming that you deposited into a Roth plan, for example, you earn tax-free on your 45K deposit AND -- BIG and -- the capital in your Roth is withdrawable tax-free when you do retire. Net bottom line: you're a huge winner over straight SS.
The 'Rats will take one look at this and pull out the class warfare card, something like: ''Well, only the rich can take advantage of this plan!'', etc. etc.
Nice try, and I for one would love to implement your plan...but it ain't gonna happen, sorry.
Your proposal does not address the solvency issue. Even without any "private accounts," either SS taxes must be increased, or future benefits must be cut (i.e., scheduled benefit increases must be reduced.)
Other than that, your proposal is sound--especially from a political point of view.
The obvious fix to your objection is to limit the amount that can be contributed to the retirement account--by an absolute amount, or by a percentage of tax income, or by both.
I understand that the rats would find anyway of attacking a Bush proposal but the rats are not the problem. The problem is the GOP and other folks who hate to take chances on "risky schemes". The fact that my proposal merely tweaks existing legislation to accomplish the same result would give these scardy cats political cover in that they didn't hurt SS. They merely changed the retirement laws.
In response to your example, the Bush proposal only calls for a portion of the SS tax to be diverted to private accounts. In addition, any credit would have to be limited to the amount of the actual tax, which in your example is about $10,000(80,000 *12.4%) for SS tax which would only cover a $20,000 contribution and a 10k tax reduction.
To accomplish Bush's proposal a limit would be placed on how much credit could be claimed in proportion to the amount of of tax.
For arguments sake, to start at 25% would be enough to get the ball rolling. Applied to this case the self-employed fellow would be able to divert up to $2,500 as a credit by making a $5,000 contribution and would reduce his contribution to SS accordingly.
Unless the cap on contributions is removed, this plan is just another bit of tinkering at the margins...which is all any of the political class are doing.
The only joker in the deck for IRAs, 401s, 403s, Roths, Keoghs, and so forth is that, just like SS, the Regress can and will change the rules to screw the players, over time. SS, after all, **began** at a maximum 2% rate on only the first $3000 of income. Even adjusting for inflation, the effective tax rate on SS has been increased some 800%+ in 70 years.
Does anyone really believe that the Regress won't negatively change the rules on QRPs here shortly, as their never-ending grab for more funds accelerates?
By reducing the amount of earnings credited to an amployee, the amount of eventual benefit is reduced.
In any retirement system, there are only 3 variables. Amount in, amount out and rate of return. No one wants to change the amount in or the amount out. The only way to change the ultimate dollars being paid out is to reduce the obligation AND allow folks to earn a higher rate of return to cover the amount reduced.
I really hope I'm wrong, Raycpa, but I've come to believe that the real motivation behind this urgent need for Social Security reform is just a desire to raise the $90,000 cap on Social Security taxes so that there will be more Social Security revenue to divert to general purposes to help conceal the deficit that the rest of the government is running. In other words, I really think that the talk about private accounts is really just a device to open a discussion of Social Security finances.
Like I say, I do really hope that I'm wrong, but I can't help but suspect that when this is all over, the President will "settle" for a package that includes an increase in taxes for people who earn their income from working, and very little else. ;-)
Thank you. The problem with increasing the base is its cost. Each time the base increases the corresponding benefit increases.
My response was not to Mr. Bush's proposal (whichever one), but to yours.
Also, only allowing a $5K contribution on $80K is, frankly, a waste of time. Right now, in IRAs and SEPs (self-employment bars the notion of 401 and 403), one receives a 1040 deduction of the amount of the contribution + half the SS tax paid; in my example, this is about $8100, or roughly $2000 in reduced taxes. Change the game with the $2500 tax credit on the $5K QRP contribution (presumably eliminating current SEP/IRA deductions and the half-of-SS-tax deduction in the bargain -- the Regress will never let you have it both ways), and the difference is a big, bad, bold $500/yr or thereabouts.
Yawn.
Good luck getting it seriously considered, but I think that it's possible that even more has to be thrown in the pot. What if I could contribute an unlimited amount into an IRA, get Federal income tax deductability on all of it, then when my withdrawls come out, only the part that is up to the amount of my Social Security benefits gets taxed?
If I save enough, and invest prudently, I might not even apply for Social Security, I'd be fully funding my own retirement. If I invested in something that performed poorly, well, I'd just pay tax on my earnings to the extent of what I draw out from Social Security.
Maybe it needs some work, but thinking people like yourself are the ones who will figure it out!
My proposal is designed to accomplish Bush's objective which is to divert a portion of SS to private accounts. Your criticism is an example that attempts to divert more than 100%.
Also, only allowing a $5K contribution on $80K is, frankly, a waste of time.
It is $5,000 on $10,000.
Right now, in IRAs and SEPs (self-employment bars the notion of 401 and 403), one receives a 1040 deduction of the amount of the contribution + half the SS tax paid; in my example, this is about $8100, or roughly $2000 in reduced taxes.
The current IRA or 401k does not reduce SS tax.
Change the game with the $2500 tax credit on the $5K QRP contribution (presumably eliminating current SEP/IRA deductions and the half-of-SS-tax deduction in the bargain -- the Regress will never let you have it both ways),
The 50% credit under current law is in addition to the deduction.
and the difference is a big, bad, bold $500/yr or thereabouts.
The difference is a redirection of $2,500 from SS to a private retirement account using the same legislation that currently exists with a requirement that the "wealthy" have to reduce their SS benefits
Again, though, I hope they prove me wrong. ;-)
Lunch time bump
At this stage in the game it is too late to debate different proposals. The President's plan needs to be pushed through now. If not, we will drag this debate out until the mid-term election when nobody will touch it.
My proposal gives congress a way to accomplish this with a minimum of novel legislation which is hard for middle of the roaders.
Covey your proposal to your congressman. Maybe it will help
Thanks, I will do that. Good suggestion.
Afternoon bump
Nightime bump
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.