Posted on 07/28/2014 6:09:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
America is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
But as we become bogged down in our many problems, I see, unfortunately, a mentality in which we are becoming increasingly a nation of the unfree – the victim – and the timid, in how we’re approaching these challenges.
Ohio Republican Senator Rob Portman wrote a column this week drawing attention to the latest dire projections from the Congressional Budget Office.
CBO projects the nation sinking deeper and deeper into an ocean of red ink.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, the Senator notes, we’ll pile on another $10 trillion of debt over the next decade and another $100 trillion in the following two decades.
On the spending side, “after averaging 20 percent of the economy over the past 50 years, spending is projected to jump to 23 percent, 29 percent, and then 34 percent of the economy over the next three decades…”
At the center of the problem, the Senator continues, driving this out-of-control spending and borrowing fiscal Titanic are entitlements – “Social Security, health entitlements, and the resulting interest costs on the swelling national debt.”
This is a time for action. But we are not getting action, and the proposals we are hearing typify more the land of the unfree and the home of the timid.
When Social Security was enacted in the 1930’s it seemed like a good idea. Everyone working would pay a small tax and those revenues could be used to pay a retirement stipend to retirees.
But then there were 45 Americans working for every retiree. Because of longer life spans and shrinking families, this ratio is down to three to one today.
This makes it impossible for this system to work. CBO projects that in 20 years there will be no funds to pay one third of the benefits of retirees.
Among Senator Portman’s proposals are to raise the retirement age and to means test – meaning to reduce benefits of higher income earners.
But why, in the land of the free, should government tell us when we can retire? And if the wealthier pay taxes but don’t collect benefits, Social Security becomes just another big national welfare program.
I have been a long time supporter of changing the whole system, turning Social Security into a retirement savings program. Instead of paying a tax and getting a government benefit in the future, just let everyone invest those funds in their own personal retirement account.
My organization, CURE, is now floating an idea that would help transition into this type of reform. We’re calling it the 30/30 plan.
Give every working American 30 years old or younger, earning $30,000/year or less, the option to stop paying payroll taxes and use all those funds to invest in a personal retirement account.
Not only would this begin to unwind a hopelessly broken Social Security system, but also it would start building an ownership society in the parts of our country where the welfare state has done and is doing the most damage – among low income Americans.
The stock market is surging today, but little benefit accrues to low-income earners. According to a Pew Research survey, 80 percent of households earning $75,000/year or more own stocks, but in households earning $30,000 or less, only 15 percent do.
Average savings in retirement accounts in white households is $115,990. In black households, it is $17,620.
The 30/30 plan starts to solve our Social Security crisis and also starts building ownership and wealth in low-income households.
This is a time to return to the first principles of our free society, to re-embrace those principles, and move forward with courage and faith.
The 30/30 plan is an approach worthy of the land of the free and the home of the brave.
More redistribution....
This is a not-so-veiled attempt to get rid of what workers call “Payroll Taxes”. IOW, more bennies for the people that likely don’t pay any Federal income taxes, either.
You know, the 6.2% that gets taken out of their wages for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) INSURANCE payments?
The end result will be not having to pay that 6.2% but still getting the disability and survivor options.
Why do we have so enemies on our side?
Only white people should be required to pay taxes.
You joke, but that’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
Why not give everyone the option of saving on his own?
Why stop at age 30?
But, something does have to be done.
> When Social Security was enacted in the 1930’s it seemed like a good idea. Everyone working would pay a small tax and those revenues could be used to pay a retirement stipend to retirees.
1) It was NEVER a good Idea.
2) Not everyone had to pay. Until some time in the 70s it was voluntary enrollment. If you joined you were guaranteed your share, but it was not mandatory to join. If you didn’t join you could not receive either. It was your choice. If you did join you could not withdraw at a later date.
This number is meaningless unless normalized for income.
But I can tell you, the numbers are not much less lopsided when you do. I've seen the studies.
This points to a matter of spending priorities.
And I won't be the only one that doesn't want to be the "ant" to these people's "grasshopper".
Take it up to age 45. They can be ‘reimbursed’ with a $20k Health savings account. Problem solved and ended in 30-40 years.
To let them out of Social Security is illogical. They are poor now because they do not work correctly. They will be even poorer still after retirement when they do not work at all.. The “poor” need to motivate!
There’s always a bit of truth in humor!c
De Facto...
I bet if you looked at the percentages, we’re pretty much there.
I want to put the "Ant and the Grasshopper" parable up to the test, and when they blow their savings on blunt wrappers, skittles, and watermelon iced tea, I want to see them all freeze to death come wintertime.
How stupid is this?
does she really think these workers will put that approx. 7.2% ( unless she is also calling for the employer to give the worker the approx. 7.2% too)into a savings account?
Hardly so like others have pointed out they won’t pay into FICA but will still get the benefits.
The Earned Income Tax Credit does this, right now, already.
That’s not going to work. The unstated impetus behind the rush to amnesty so many illegals is that since the US has aborted over 50 million otherwise taxpayers, we need new young blood paying the tab for tomorrow’s retirees. If the SS income stream dries up during the lifetimes of today’s politicians, they will be in for a whale of a bad time, and they know it. It’s all kicking the can down the road to the next generation, for problems to explode on somebody else’s watch. It’s much too easy to want to be loved today by those whose support you purchase with property stolen from others.
In the sense that you can redistribute now, or you can redistribute later. More money now with reduction of the payroll deduction (and bigger operating deficits for Social Security, the IOU lockbox notwithstanding), and more welfare later.
Social Security was supposed to be a safety net to keep poor seniors from dying in the street. If that's all it was, nobody would get more $15,000 a year, but tax free.
It would force people to be responsible and not have debts when they retire. Social Security should only cover this one thing. Medicare should go back to what it was supposed to be, if anything at all. That would just be Part A. Part B and the Pharmaceutical program should be totally private choices.
Portman's dumb idea would create more problems than it solved. All those other things would still exist, and seniors who didn't have enough savings would end up getting a welfare check, food stamps, obamaphones,.....
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.