Two things we should do on Social Security

[dolstein]

First, we should implement an immediate payroll tax cut, in order to eliminate the social security surplus. Frankly, we should have done this years ago, once it became obvious that Congress was only going to spend that money on other programs. Cutting the social security tax won't effect the solvency of social security one bit, because the current surpluses aren't accumulating in a trust fund -- they're being spent -- on things that have NOTHING to do with Social Security. And what's worse, by cloaking the true size of the deficit, social security surpluses actually encourage fiscal irresponsibility.

Second, we should either raise the retirement age for the baby boomer generation, cut benefits for wealthy baby boomers, or both. Sorry folks, but we're looking as a projected funding shortfall of many trillions of dollars. Anyone who says the gap can be closed without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age simply isn't being honest. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let the baby boomers stick my generation with the bill for their fiscal responsibility. They chose tax cuts over social security -- let's hold them to that choice. Those people who received the benefit of the tax cuts under Regan and Bush should lose a corresponding portion of their social security benefits -- otherwise we'll be letting them get away with intergenerational theft.

[SharonAnn]

1. No, we didn't choose tax cuts over Social Security.

I've supported my parents and grandparents, your parents and grandparents and I've even paid extra to put money aside for myself.

Sorry, but neither I nor any others can do without Social Security. And remember, we vote!

[dolstein]

4. So screw the next generation -- is that your answer?

My generation will end up paying the highest social security taxes in history. And in order to keep the current level of benefits and the current retirement age, we'll have to pay substantially higher income taxes too. This is not a simple case of my generation bearing the same burden as yours -- our social security burden will be MUCH higher than yours, yet in all likelihood, its OUR social security benefits that will suffer.

And what are we getting for this? Have the baby boomers brought us world peace? Have they ended poverty? Have they given us energy independence? Have they given us the best educational system in the world?

[unblock]

2. means testing

if you have significant other income, your social security benefits are scaled back.

a very simple way to get (partially) at this is to simply go back to fully taxing benefits. that way, those in the highest bracket return more to the treasury.

we all lose track of the real purpose of social security. it's not an inferior, government run savings account for individuals who would rather invest for higher return elsewhere.

no.

it's always been a LATERAL TRANSFER from today's earners to today's retirees, the goal being to keep grandma and grandpa from being homeless. true, earners got the promise that they would be taken care of when it was their turn to be on the retiree side, but it was never 'their money' being returned to them having been invested in ... well, something. no, tomorrow's retirees were always to be supported by tomorrow's earners.

so let's stop kicking extra bucks bill gates' way. he doesn't need it, yet he'll be entitled to the maximum.



as a completely separate proposal, i'm in favor of scrapping the payroll tax altogether (it's way too regressive) and making social security and medicare fully funded through progressive income taxes.

[SoCalDem]

3. So does that mean that people will no longer "get downsized"

when they hit 55?? That 10 -12 year gap is a pretty HUGE one, when you get laid off at just the wrong time in your life.. There are no decent jobs out there for 50 somethings...

companies love to lay this age group off..It's much cheaper to hire 2 20 yr olds..

This is probably the biggest crisis out there for lots of boomers.. They have worked 35+ years, and most do not have a guaranteed pension..

Lots of rolling the dice and praying you do not get sick in that 10-12 year gap..

Those ages just happen to coincide with the time their kids are heading for college...ha!

April fool, boomers.. Cash in your chips and head for the nearest walmart..:(

[im4edwards]

5. there is no such thing as SS surplus

the government currently collects more than it spends as a means to continue to be able to pay when the payout exceeds the income in a few years time.

Our glorious Congress continually pillages the account where this money is sitting, for which they ought to be shot, to pay for the usual pork. They nicely leave IOU's. How thoughtful.

This is the biggest shame of a shameful body.

[dolstein]

6. If a corporation did this, people would be going to jail

Just imagine what would happen if the executives of a debt-ridden corporation decided to divert money from their overfunded pension plan in order to pay for operating expenses. That's against the law. People would be going to jail. But this is exactly what the Congress and the Bush administration have been doing.

[SuffragetteSal]

7. what about all those people

who don't live long enough to collect their SS? I know several people in my family who have passed away in their late 50's, never getting to use that money?

[camero]

9. That's exactly what the first Bush was hoping

That Baby Boomers drug useage in the 60's would lead to early deaths and the SS cost would not be so high. But then again, he and Reagan raised SS taxes 9 times while in office.

[JVS]

8. Why don't we just let the Republicans destroy it, then campaign against...

them using that for Ammo? Isn't defeating Bush in 2004 really the most important thing?

[camero]

10. 2 things that must be done

Means testing is one, SS was meant to be a program to keep seniors out of poverty. Too many of our seniors(I've seen many boomers with this attitude also) think that the government is just a bank for them. It's not. It's about shared sacrifice for the commom good.

The second would be to eliminate the cap (currently set at $87,000/ year) on SS taxes. Why should milionaires collect SS when they don't share the burden of keeping the system afloat? They already have the funds they need for retirement.

And alot of boomers did opt for tax cuts at thier childrens expense, someone has to pay for the deficit. How do you guys sleep at night, I wonder?

[Yupster]

11. I heard someone at the debate the other night...

Gephardt I think. He said whenever social security has been in trouble in the past, they have stepped up and fixed it. I thought, yeah fixed it meant raising the payroll tax to over 15 %. You can't keep fixing it like that. You need a better plan than that.

Here's my suggestions.

1. Eliminate the income cap, BUT, also eliminate the benefit cap. With the lots of extra money a millionaire will add to the system, he would also get a better benefit. This would not cost much because the payout formula is so progressive, that the guy who put in double what he's now putting in might get a 10 % better benefit. It's not much, but I think the point would be important that you get more for paying in more.

2. Bring the priviledged workers like school teachers and some state workers back into the system if they are currently out of it. It's ridiculous anyway to have a universal program and then go about exempting certain priviledged employees from participating, leaving the rest of us to have to carry their share of the burden that we all should be happy to share.

These two changes would not be nirvanna to the system, but they would help add years to its solvency. They also could get done if they are done together, because each party would have to challenge one of its principal special interests.

However,

Medicare is in worse long-term shape as social security, and

I still think it sucks that a person (more likely to be a black male) should work his entire life and die before getting a penny from social security, while another person (more likely to be a white woman) can work relatively little in her life, contribute little to the fund, and get a check for 35 years. You might say it's just random chance, but it's not. Certain groups are most likely to be benefitted and other groups are most likely to be screwed.

Since it's a pay as you go system, I don't know what can be done about my last concern though.