| Author | Message | ||
     Madden 11 Citizen Username: Madden_11 Post Number: 626 Registered: 12-2003 |
And BTW, wasn't Greenspan the one warning against getting a fixed rate mortgage when interest rates were at a historic low? | ||
| sportsnut Citizen Username: Sportsnut Post Number: 1751 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tom - I think that keeping the rate the same and just removing the cap will lead to a surplus (IMO) and you know what they say about budget surpluses - you find a way to spend them and most likely on some non-working program and in the end more of my tax dollars will go down the drain. What I meant by staggered rates was a progressive system similar to income tax where the more you make the more you pay albeit at a much lower rate. Keep in mind that by raising the rate on individuals you'll also raise the rate that your employers pay too. Themp you don't have to buy them - I'll give them to you. In exchange allow me to opt out of the current system and let me invest my own money. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 1502 Registered: 12-2001 |
No, I'll give you cash. I'm speculating that they will be there. You just have to sign your checks over to me. What's your price? By the way - Ouch! No wonder my ••• has been sore. "He's like a pitbull. He's got a pair of trousers in his mouth and he's not letting go." -- Sen. Santorum, describing President Bush on Social Security | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5560 Registered: 1-2003  |
This should be easy, themp. Have sportsnut sign over his future benefits to you. Agree to reimburse all of his FICA taxes.  I expect sportsnut to decline that deal. | ||
| Strawberry Alarm Clock Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 4542 Registered: 10-2001 |
When will we hear the Democratic plan for SS reform? Seems to me all we've heard is typical liberal bitching and moaning but no alternate plan. Democrats, useless. | ||
| John Roberts Citizen Username: Undertaxed Post Number: 97 Registered: 5-2004 |
The problem is that the Dems are comparing a govt. dole system to private accounts. You cannot beat whatever payments the Govt is guaranteeing down the road. Never will be able to. If the Government only guaranteed actual SS returns on money paid in then the choices would be equivalent. If the existing system always pays out more than it could get in and earn, then an investment can never beat it. It is like arguing for self paid welfare. Existing guarantees are too high. You should only get out what you put in plus achievable interest. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5564 Registered: 1-2003 |
So, John Roberts, forget the disabled and orphaned, because they didn't put into the system? Are you aware, to the slightest degree, of the principles that SS was built on? You cite principles it fails at which it never tried to achieve. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1586 Registered: 6-2001 |
Greenspan's support of SS privatization is both a face saving vanity move on his part, and extremely cynical. Back in the 80s Greenspan pushed Reagan to increase the SS tax on workers making less than $80,000. He said this would provide the solvency SS needed well into the 21st century. In 2001, Greenspan, dancing for his new caliph, champions tax cuts for people making over $500,000. The net result-salaried and hourly working stiffs unwittingly participate in one of the biggest wealth transfer scams. | ||
| John Roberts Citizen Username: Undertaxed Post Number: 98 Registered: 5-2004 |
Tom, I just want things called what they are. SS is not an investment plan it is a subsidy like welfare. The NYT should not say that private investments can't beat SS without first saying that SS is a handout system. My point is that one can never beat a subsidized system in the marketplace over the long run. The issue is that the system promises more than people put in. If the gov would have used a lower payout ratio (calculate interest at the rate of inflation), the system would have been fine on its own. Point is you should only get out what you put in plus attainable interest. Widows, orphans and whomever else you are worried about should get welfare/medicaid/food stamps whatever, but not SS above what they paid. It is all a sham. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 1589 Registered: 6-2001 |
Three-Card Maestro By PAUL KRUGMAN Alan Greenspan just did it again. Four years ago, the Fed chairman lent crucial political support to the Bush tax cuts. He didn't specifically endorse the administration's plan, and if you read his testimony carefully, it contained caveats and cautions. But that didn't matter; the headlines trumpeted Mr. Greenspan's support, and legislation whose prospects had previously seemed dubious sailed through Congress. On Wednesday Mr. Greenspan endorsed Social Security privatization. But there's a difference between 2001 and 2005. In 2001, Mr. Greenspan offered a convoluted, implausible justification for supporting everything the Bush administration wanted. This time, he offered no justification at all. In 2001, some readers may recall, Mr. Greenspan argued that we needed to cut taxes to prevent the federal government from running excessively large surpluses. Even at the time it seemed obvious from his tortured logic that he was looking for some excuse, any excuse, to help out a Republican administration. His lack of sincerity was confirmed when projected surpluses turned into large deficits, and he nonetheless supported even more tax cuts. This week, Mr. Greenspan offered no excuse for supporting privatization. In fact, he agreed with two of the main critiques of the administration's plan: that it would do nothing to improve the Social Security system's finances, and that it would lead to a dangerous increase in debt. Yet he still came out in favor of the idea. Let me make a detour here. The way privatizers link the long-run financing of Social Security with the case for private accounts parallels the three-card-monte technique the Bush administration used to link terrorism to the Iraq war. Speeches about Iraq invariably included references to 9/11, leading much of the public to believe that invading Iraq somehow meant taking the war to the terrorists. When pressed, war supporters would admit they lacked evidence of any significant links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, let alone any Iraqi role in 9/11 - yet in their next sentence it would be 9/11 and Saddam, together again. Similarly, calls for privatization invariably begin with ominous warnings about Social Security's financial future. When pressed, administration officials admit that private accounts would do nothing to improve that financial future. Yet in the next sentence, they once again link privatization to the problem posed by an aging population. And so it was with Mr. Greenspan. He painted a dark (and seriously exaggerated) picture of the demographic problem, and said that what we need is a "fully funded" system. He then conceded that Bush-style privatization would do nothing to improve the system's funding. But privatization "as a general model," he said, "has in it the seeds of developing full funding by its very nature." Nice metaphor, but what does it mean? Clearly, he was trying to create the impression of links where none exist. Mr. Greenspan went on to concede that the opponents of privatization are right to worry about the huge borrowing that Bush-style privatization would entail. Privatizers claim that financial markets won't be disturbed by all that borrowing because the Bush plan prescribes offsetting cuts in guaranteed benefits for the workers who open private accounts. Mr. Greenspan, who does know a thing or two about markets, put his finger on the reason why those prospective future benefit cuts wouldn't offset current borrowing in the eyes of investors: "Well, the problem is that you cannot commit future Congresses to stay with that." Yet the chairman managed to avoid admitting the obvious - that borrowing on the scale the Bush plan requires would substantially increase the risk of a financial crisis. And the headlines didn't emphasize his concession that crucial critiques of the Bush plan are right. As he surely intended, the headlines emphasized his support for privatization. One last point: a disturbing thing about Wednesday's hearing was the deference with which Democratic senators treated Mr. Greenspan. They acted as if he were still playing his proper role, acting as a nonpartisan source of economic advice. After the hearing, rather than challenging Mr. Greenspan's testimony, they tried to spin it in their favor. But Mr. Greenspan is no longer entitled to such deference. By repeatedly shilling for whatever the Bush administration wants, he has betrayed the trust placed in Fed chairmen, and deserves to be treated as just another partisan hack. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | ||
| Guy Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 555 Registered: 8-2004 |
I can see from his article that Krugman is worried. Greenspan is one of the most respected economists in the world and his opinions carry a great deal of weight. Democrats in Congress have now gone on record saying that SS must be fixed. Greenspan is on record saying that private accounts are a good thing even if they don't address the solvency issues. Greenspan's point on private accounts is that it builds up a tangible trust fund that the government cannot use to fund other programs. A better solution would be to run separate budgets , but that won't happen. Krugman's statement that Greenspan is a partisan hack is a joke. Greenspan gave pros and cons to private accounts and tax cuts. Partisan hacks never give both sides. Greenspan's philosophy has been consistent. Tax cuts are a good thing because they promote economic growth which spurs revenue. However he would also want spending cuts to go along with those tax cuts. Hardly partisan given the admistration's spending. Krugman again shows he has no credibility. | ||
| LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 423 Registered: 10-2002  |
Since when has there been a lack of opportunity to save money in private retirement accounts? 401(k), 403(b), IRA, Roth IRA, Keogh (sp?) Those are true retirement accounts. It seems to me that we need SS to be privatized even less now, than say 30 years ago, now that we have these types of accounts. SS is an insurance plan, not a retirement account. It needs some tweaking to be able to sustain itself financially long-term, but privatizing SS is not the way; even the president can't substantiate that claim. The way SS is talked about these days implies that this is the only way anyone will ever have any money to retire on. It's not even meant to be enough to live on in retirement, but should supplement other things like pensions and retirement accounts (although I realize, sadly, that this is all some people have coming in when they're no longer working, and it's used for other circumstances like survivor benefits and being disabled during your "working" years). If we want to save money privately in a retirement account, there are plenty of opportunities out there to do so already. | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2081 Registered: 5-2001  |
Sorry for the cross-posting, but for those interested in Congressman Pascrell's position on the Social Security issue, he will be hosting a "Town Hall" meeting in Montclair on 2/23. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3151 Registered: 8-2003 |
Social Security needs much more than 'tweaking', unless you think 3.7 Trillion is a tweak. The Social Security Administration says you can take off the ceiling on income that's taxed (currently at 90K) and you only put off the date where SS pays out more than it takes in by 5-6 years. People -- the system is unsustainable as it's currently structured. It's disingenuous to say that personal accounts won't save Social Security when anyone paying attention knows that's only part of the equation, nor has Bush claimed that all you have to do is put in personal accounts. Even some Democrats who'd allow personal accounts on top of Social Security (like Feinstein) STILL leave the problem of Social Security promising more than it can deliver. You can stop personal accounts and you still have no fix for Social Security. | ||
| mjc Citizen Username: Mjc Post Number: 257 Registered: 10-2004 |
cjc, re: "the date where SS pays out more than it takes in" - Isn't this a planned circumstance? I.e., there would be more $ paid in to the SS trust fund than paid out while all the boomers were working, then we would turn around and pay out from that surplus? (I will pass over the fact that various administrations have dipped into the SS trust fund that was being built up, so that now the general fund owes the trust fund, and the Reps can say that SS is being subsidized from general monies, whereas actually it's been the other way around.) | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3152 Registered: 8-2003 |
Don't know -- I'm not aware of that date being "planned," but I doubt it. Someone would have raised a quote to that effect by now in this debate. I certainly think that the framers of the program would not view 40 workers paying for 1 evolving into 2 paying for 1 as something that can be offset by a 'trust fund' that grows with a 2+% return. I think framers were thinking that people would conveniently die before they went too long at collecting benefits. That didn't happen. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7644 Registered: 5-2001 |
One way or another this is going to cost big bucks. The transistion costs per the Bushies are $1trillon over the first ten years, growing by another $2billion to $3billion over the next 20 years. "There is no such thing as a free lunch" | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4978 Registered: 5-2001 |
Sportsnut: I am so glad for you that you don't need either the portion of your own salary or the portion of you employer's contributions to social security to make it into retirement. I wish most of the rest of us were so fortunate. When my employer signed on to social security in the 1970's, the portion of our pension system which was contributed by the employees and served as an annuity was eliminated and those contributions were made to social secutiy instead. The promise was that social security would be there for us as the annuity portion of our pension when we retired. It is our money, deducted from our salary plus the money which our employer has been putting into social security on our behalf. Those of us who are at or nearing social security retirement age planned for our retirement with the PROMISE social security would be there. We have received annual statements from social security telling us how much is in our social security account and how much per month we can expect on retirement. It would be totally wrong of the US Government to turn around now and tell the people of my generation that they are sorry, perhaps we shouldn't have been compelled to join social security in the first place. I can see offering alternatives to people who have not yet entered the work force, giving an option to those who would like to invest some or all of their retirement funds (which would otherwise have gone to social security) in some other manner (but don't 401K, IRA and a number of other such alternatives already exist?), raising the maximum salary which can be taxed by social security, etc. but please don't force those already in the system to change their method of retirement savings if they don't want to do so and under no circumstances should people who contributed to social security and counted on having it during their retuirement years be told that their money will no longer be available to them. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4979 Registered: 5-2001 |
Now that I have posted what I am not willing to do to save social security, at least for its present members, what can be done to help guarantee that the promised social security money will be there when it comes time to pay out the benefits? 1. Get the social security fund totally separated from control by the Executive and Legislative branches of our government so the fund cannot be raided for any other purposes. (Yes, I know this is way easier to say than do but otherwise Social Security will never be self supporting). 2. Separate out the retirement and SSI benefits programs. Use employee and employer contributions to social security to fund the retirement accouts. Set up SSI as a separate voluntary program with contributions set at a rate which is supportable by current actuarial tables. Provide for periodic actuarial review of the SSI contribution rate and make adjustments when necessary. 3. Make the separate coverage of spouses (and ex-spouses) under the wage earner's account voluntary. Provide this coverage only for an additional fee. Use current actuarial tables to determine what the fee should be. Adjust these fees periodically based on changes in life expectancy. 4. On retirement, enable a deceased retiree's beneficiary to continue receiving the retiree's social security benefit but at an adjusted rate based on the actuarial table projection for that beneficiary. 5. Examine the administrative costs associated with social security and determine where they can be reduced. Make the program as cost efficient as possible. 6. Examine the ways in which social security funds are presently invested. Look for ways to increase the per centage yield without to greatly endangering the principal being invested. 7. Call in the loans which were made by the social security trust fund to the Federal government. Set up a schedule for repayment with reasonable interest. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7664 Registered: 5-2001 |
Joan, for the record Bush has indicated he doesn't want any changes for those of us over 55, although I suspect in the end the payments are going to be indexed to inflation instead of wages even for those already retired or about to retire. |
