[Fledermaus]

Ridiculous article.

The gist is this: "you get taxed when you start working, say at 24, for Social Security and if you are dumb enough to work hard and make a good living and plan for your retirement regardless of the horrible tax code, you should just have to give up all the money you paid in".

Yeah, that's really American. That's socialism. I don't give a crap what someone at 67 makes in retirement, they had to pay the same amount of money into the system as everyone else. It's not like they are making a killing on Social Security at 67 even if they paid in the maximum most of their lives (which for 2004 is $10,899.60) every year.

If you want to get rid of this ridiculous system, just say so. But to play the class warfare, envious of the rich card to "fix the system" is just as stupid as anything the Democrats come up with.

Think about what you are saying. What if you, tomorrow, won a lottery and you were paying almost $11,000 a year into Social Security. I'll bet good money you'd want your taxes back when you turned of age and could file.

The answer is to slowly start privatizing the system. It bites...you still have to FORCE people to save, but that is because they've been lied to and indoctrinated to think Social Security is a retirement plan. But that is changing with more and more people owning a 401(k) plan and insurance plans, etc.

They are seeing that the Social Security tax of 6.2%, matched by the employer or self-employed, is ripping them off when they only put 5% of gross wages, pre-tax, into a 401(k) and barely, if at all, matched by the employer. They see that account, regardless of the economy, growing and it's an asset. You can't take your future Social Security earnings to bank as collateral for a loan.

As to those that say upcap Social Security, like the 1.45% (again matched by employer or self-employed) part of FICA for Medicare, you again are making the wrong argument. That argument only strengthens the current system in higher taxes and does nothing to start the decline of both SS and Medicare as government programs.

All the money is just an unfunded, future liability anyway. So there is really NO "transition" cost in slowly changing the system by letting more and more out in exchange for less, little or no benefits in the future. Any good mathematician can come up with tables for current ages, percentages, income level, money already paid in, etc. that would give us all options to make voluntarily.

You want to change? Fine, here are the choices. Want to stay in the current program because you might be older and have more invested? Fine, works for me.

But the key is choice. Unfortunately, the true anti-choice party, the Democrats, demagogue the issue and Republicans shy away.

Bush needs to run again on this issue. It's a winner.

[Fledermaus]

Oh, by "you" I meant the writer of the article. Bad habit, I reply like I'm talking directly to them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

FICA is a sort of "stealth" tax; people don't fully realize its extent, usually.

When an employer considers hiring you or raising your pay, he balances the benefit of your future servicesto his business against the total cost to his business of paying you. He does not decide what to pay you and then get flummoxed to learn that he has to pay as much Social Security "payroll tax" as you do; what kind of employer is naif enough not to already know that??!

So in essence you pay the "employer's contribution" as well as your own. Thus, Social Security tax is way over 10%--which if prudently saved and invested would be quite ample for a comfortable retirement. But of course the money is not saved--it is by law "invested" in claims on future general fund revenues, a.k.a. "risk-free government bonds." Which simply means that the government spends the money as fast as it comes in, if not more so--and if it did not spend the money, the result would be deflation.

Clearly then, if there is to be a real Social Security Trust Fund which actually prevents poverty and does not cause a macro economic meltdown, it must be invested in the private economy. But if the government invests that kind of money in the private economy, it will quickly acquire a huge stake in our major corporations--and the Democrats will put politicians on the boards of directors thereof. IOW, socialism.

The conclusion is that the SSTF must be invested in the real economy rather than in government bonds, but that investment must be controlled by the taxpayer individually rather than by the government.

[anoldafvet]

You need to run for Congress.

[kittymyrib]

No, no...you can only have choice if it means killing babies, not if it means killing a government program. Actually, the group who is most ripped off in the Ponzi scheme of Social Security is black men. Their shorter life expectancy lets the government keep everything they paid in....because of course, the family can inherit none of their SS contributions when they die. And this is the party of the "little people"...what a joke! No wonder the dems want to keep people from choice in education, too.

[nopardons]

Spot on, as usual! :-)

[dalereed]

"I don't give a crap what someone at 67 makes in retirement, they had to pay the same amount of money into the system as everyone else"

I'm 66 and collecting it but after paying into it for 25 years I got smart and quit paying in 1978.

I quit taking a salary and took all my compensation as rental payment and avoided all payroll taxes.