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

To: evilC
I think current and soon-to-be recipients of Social Security should share in the burden of averting disaster.

the current especially since they paid less than the soon to be recipients.
People should not receive more than they put in. since I have been paying 12% my entire career, while current recipients paid a far lower amount, and have been receiving more than they put in it is they not us that should make the sacrifice.
we are already making the sacrifice of paying an ever increasing FICA that we will not get back.
once a person has received what they put in the check should stop.
64 posted on 03/10/2005 6:28:04 PM PST by avitot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]


To: avitot
What I am seeing at this point is that the anti-Personal Accounts crowd are winning because they are, at this point, framing the debate.

GWB had momentum coming out of the election, but he has been awfully slow in sharing the details of his plan, aside from creating Personal accounts and that he doesn't want to increase the Payroll Tax. Aside from that, we really don't know a great deal about what he wants to do, so the Dems can bring up all sorts of possibilities and demagogue them.

While I am for the creation of Personal Accounts (I'd love to have had the choice 20 years ago when I was just entering the work force), based on what (admittedly little) I know about the President's plan, I tend to share the view that Private Accounts, in and of themselves, won't 'fix' Social Security.

What I'm guessing is that PAs will be used to make up for a decrease in guaranteed SS benefits paid to future retirees. Unless the Payroll Tax percentage is increased or the Cap raised dramatically, I just don't see how we're going to be able to divert a third of a worker's 'contribution' to the SS fund and still have enough left over to pay full guaranteed benefits. The math just doesn't work. My thought is that the guaranteed benefits might be reduced by 10% to 25% >BUT< that decrease will be more than offset by the return from your PA, so the net result would be that you'll receive a greater overall retirement benefit.

Trouble is, admitting that would be viewed as political suicide by all but the most courageous politicians and give the Dems a big stick to whack Republicans with. Further, there are enough Republicans who aren't exactly enamored with the proposal as we know it now- just wait until they have to explain to their constituents that their guaranteed benefits are going down......
65 posted on 03/10/2005 6:44:55 PM PST by WeaponOfMassInstruction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | 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