Paul O'Neill: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (NYT Editorial)

[kskiska]

Mods: Should be in Editorials.

Pittsburgh — THIS is what we should do about Social Security: At the same time we acknowledge that it is the most successful domestic program in American history, we should also admit that Social Security, in its present form, is unsustainable. And then we should come up with a plan that is different than what President Bush and most of the pundits are proposing.

We should ask ourselves what would be a worthy aspiration for the financial security of retired Americans in the years ahead. My answer is that we should establish a process that will produce a substantial annuity for every American at retirement age.

By substantial, I mean at least $1 million. In order to create a real, fully financed annuity of this size, people must begin saving when they enter the work force. The saving needs to be continuous, and it needs to be left intact so that compound interest can work its magic.

We can do this. We already have a process in place that requires that we give the government 12.4 percent of our income in the name of Social Security.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/opinion/16oneill.html?oref=login&hp

[othermeans]

1. O'Neill knows what he's talking about he pissed off Bush when he

told him that the tax cuts would harm the country so Bush fired him. He proposed this same thing when he was Treasury Secretary. Also in his book he said the Bushistas were intent on invading Iraq before 9/11

[UpInArms]

2. and why should anyone trust what Paul O'Neill has to say?

http://tinyurl.com/3v2y4

June 13, 2001

When a high-level government official calls for drastic changes in U.S. law, it ought to be big news. But in an interview reported by the Financial Times' Amity Shlaes (5/19/01 & 5/22/01), treasury secretary Paul O'Neill called for sweeping changes in U.S. tax and social policy, and some three weeks later, those statements have made hardly a ripple in the U.S. media. Most Americans have probably not heard a word about them.

In the interview, O'Neill called the current U.S. tax system "an abomination" that required changes to its "very structure." His preferred changes? O'Neill "absolutely" supports the elimination of taxes on corporations-- and the shifting of the tax burden to individuals, saying government would work better if it "collected taxes in a more direct way from the people."

He also called for the abolition of Social Security and Medicare, on the grounds that "able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement, and, for that matter, health and medical needs." In fact, O'Neill believes the U.S. should reconsider the whole purpose of taxation: "National defense is a federal responsibility," Shlaes paraphrases O'Neill as saying, "but all other outlays need review."

And O'Neill assured Shlaes he was not speaking only for himself: "Not only am I committed to working on this issue, the president is also intrigued about the possibility of fixing this mess."

...more...

(edited to fix link)

[wtmusic]

3. Paul O'Neill is an interesting character

He often sees the world from the position of someone who has been very fortunate and has $60M in the bank, yet at one point tried to get Dubya to commit $15M in humanitarian aid to every African nation to build wells (clean water for Africa would save millions of lives annually--the proposition went nowhere).

He has been extremely critical of Bush and refused to lie about his firing when asked to do so by Andrew Card. Although his ideas about the abolition of SS and corporate income tax are out to lunch, he has integrity and that's what got him fired.

[UpInArms]

4. I do not dispute what you say, I merely

am not trusting anything O'Neill offers on social security or taxes - he has his own agenda.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, but the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

[wtmusic]

5. Agreed. Trusting the ex-chairman of Alcoa

with advice on corporate tax structure is not in the country's best interests.

[HamdenRice]

6. Abolishing corporate taxes is a progressive position ...

depending on how it is done:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2958164

[struggle4progress]

7. Bologna. eom

[priller]

8. O'Neill makes the fundamental mistake many conservatives make:

Social Security is not a system for investment. It is there to provide fail-safe security for retirement. If you want people to save more, great, offer incentives. But don't screw with Social Security by taking away the *security* from it.

Besides, as Kevin Drum pointed out today, this article is woefully short on details and numbers, and O'Neill seems to be talking out of his ass.