"Free Lunchers" = Social Security supporters.

[Cobalt Violet]

Just heard it on Meet the press. I think we will be hearing this a lot more. It's our money! We pay a very specific deduction from our paychecks for this every single week!




:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[LoZoccolo]

1. 2+2=5 n/t

[marcologico]

2. Four legs good, two legs better! n/t

[BlueManDude]

3. any relation to the handful of "dead-enders" in iraq?

[Q]

4. This is coming from the same mindset of the 'Welfare Queens'....

...and is nothing more than the class warfare that the Democrats don't seem to want to fight.

There are certainly 'social' programs that are paid for by tax dollars and could be called a 'free lunch' if someone wanted to sound greedy and selfish. But funds for Social Security are taken out of every workers paycheck and they expect a return on their 'investment'.

[Warpy]

9. It is

Just as they ended support for abandoned women and children, they'll seek to make abandonment of the elderly and disabled palatable to the yuppies and rednecks.

You can tell the degree of civilization a culture has attained by how they treat the most vulnerable members: women, children and old people.

I think we can safely say this administration is pushing us back into total savagery in the name of fattening the rich.

[juajen]

97. You're so right!

I am drawing my SS and it is certainly not a free lunch, since I've paid for it since I was 15 yrs. old. I also hate the SS program being referred to as an entitlement. "They" also lump medicare in with medicaid, even though medicare has a premium payment. Disgusting!

[KayLaw]

5. Disgusting

I remember being upset when I got my first paycheck in the '70's. FICA took such a big chunk! Then, in the early "80's, Reagan and Greenspan said they had to take even more, so there would be plenty when I retired. I was shocked but what choice did I have' I had to trust these guys.

I worked as a respiratory therapy tech in a hospital. I made pretty good money but I really felt that rise in deductions. Now, at 51, I'm being told that expecting these Republicans to keep their promise, I'm not only expecting too much, I'm expecting something for nothing - a free lunch.

:mad:

[Clark2008]

6. Who said it?

I saw Bill :scared: Frist was supposed to be on and decided not to watch and make myself sick.

[Cobalt Violet]

12. Byron York.

He said , and I'm paraphrasing, there are free lunchers and there are those for solvency, like Bush. :puke:

[Clark2008]

13. And, of course, I'm assuming there was no Dem to challenge that

Or, if there was, he/she either didn't catch the fascist statement or didn't call it out. Correct?

[papau]

24. Few National Review Types are known to be truth tellers- but Buzzwords are

test by them before the GOP makes an ad buy. This was probably just such a test.

York is finishing a book, "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy," ( for example, MoveOn.org, George Soros, 527 groups, Fahrenheit 9/11, Air America radio)

just makes me want to pre-order it now

[blondeatlast]

47. I wonder if he realizes I EARNED that so-called "Free Lunch."

If this is the best the Heritage Foundation parrots can do, they are slipping.

We cannot let this catch on.

That money is EARNED.

[tsuki]

7. Let's tell AARP that they are "Welfare Queens." n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

14. Who's head is on the chopping block next?

Too many middle class and upper middle class people were very supportive of hurting the poor with "welfare reform". They failed to stand up for the poor.

Little did they know their own heads would soon be on the chopping block. How could they not see this coming?

[tsuki]

20. I don't know. I am on a county email list with many retirees (FL.)

Every time that I have tried to alert them to what Bushco is planning to do, I get the nastiest replies that I have ever scene. Flaming on DU is minor compared to what they have called me.

And to boot, Bushco must fix SS because it's all Clinton's and CARTER'S fault. Carter, for Gawd's sake, back in 1976.

They love Bush. And if another one tells me how much I owe THEM, but for THEM and THEIR sacrifice, I would be speaking Japanese or German, I will for sure be banned for what I reply.

[merbex]

8. This is where framing is critical

Social Security was FDR's Contract with America

Repugs are out to break the contract that IS NOT IN CRISIS

[elehhhhna]

10. You forgot "greedy retirees"... Generational warfare, here we come!

[naryaquid]

11. ...The Fascist Beast just keeps rollin.....getting VERY scary

here folks, at least imo. As for it's being our money, yeah..Hell it's ALL our money, isn't it?..."We the people" pay the taxes, right?

[Vickers]

15. "Free lunchers" = giving big business humongous tax breaks

and no-bid contracts, etc.

Big business is sucking on a much bigger teat than a gazillion "welfare queens" (sic) ever could.

[Acryliccalico]

16. Free Lunchers = BushCo

[InvisibleBallots]

17. So what about all the Social Security taxes I paid?

I paid for the lunch goddamn it!

[KayLaw]

18. You bet you did

It'S like paying for your meal and Burger King and waiting and waiting, only to be told, What? You didn't really expect a free lunch, did you?

[nancyharris]

21. Actually

The “lunch” you paid (and presumable are still paying) is for current retirees. Your “lunch” will be paid by those working when you retire (assuming that there is enough money being taken from their paychecks each week).

[InvisibleBallots]

22. er, that analogy is way, way off

So, I go into McDonald's, hand over my money for a Happy Meal, and the manager comes by and says, "I borrowed all the revenue from last month, so now I'm not going to pay you back, since I won't provide a free lunch".

Yeah, analagies are nice as far as they go, but Social Security is a different animal than a burger manufacturing store.

[solarspa]

51. No actually

We have all been paying into the trust fund since the 80's. There is plenty of money--so much money that Bush wants it.

[InvisibleBallots]

52. exactly, solarspa

I think you are 100% right - we have all been paying into Social Security, and unless they STEAL the money we paid, Social Security is in great shape.

[BlueInRed]

19. Not only that, but since the 80s we've been paying more

than was needed and they've been blowing it on stupid stuff and pure pork, instead of either shoring up SS or helping people with that money.

I an old enough to remember when our SS tax rates doubled under Reagan, all to shore up SS for the boomers. I have more than paid my share, so how dare them say otherwise.

Even worse, the only people who haven't paid their fair share are the uber-wealthy like Bush and Cheney, because the SS stops on all money earned over about 80,000. Think about that CEO who makes 1 million a year and 90% of that is exempt from FICA taxes.

Grrrr.:grr:

[nancyharris]

23. For what it is worth

The reason FICA is not attached to wages over $80,000 is because benefits are capped for those earning over $80,000. A person earning 10 million a year receives no more Social Security benefits upon retirement than someone earning $80,000 a year.

Now someone earning 10 million a year surely does not need the help of Social Security upon retirement but it is hard to find any politician, either Democratic or Republican, that is in favor of “means testing” Social Security.

[papau]

26. Benefits are capped because the rich won't get a "deal" on their tax

The 15% factor for high end earnings means giving the rich a benefit on all wages would have the effect of ending any deficit over the next 75 years - and then some.

The current tax rate could be dropped - or the Reagan Retirement age of 67 that comes into effect shortly could be reduced to 66.

In 2001 the SSAB said only 88% of deficit is taken care of by wage base that had no cap, after giving benefits to those rich on those extra wages.

Saddly the above SSAB report is the last one that is useful to the debate (I do not find similiar post Clinton reports).

The dates we discuss on DU today from the 2004 trustee's report - 2018 which is the first date a small portion of the Soc Sec Trust Fund Assets are projected to need to be sold, and 2043 which is the first date the payroll tax take plus asset sales will not cover the benefit payout - are 2016 and 2038 in this 2001 report, so the situation has improved.

Plus it discusses the effect of various solutions in terms of the percentage of deficit that is taken care - where deficit is the hoary old average (add each of 75 years over funding or under funding percentage to get an average for the 75 years). The Problem with this approach is that it was designed and chosen as an early warning system - not as an exact calculation of what additional percentage tax is needed. The actual tax increase needed will be much smaller because of the interest earned on the Trust Fund assets.

In any case it is safe to say that with the 2038 of 2001 becoming the 2043 of 2004 we can expect the "88%" of deficit paid off by eliminating the wage cap and paying benefits on all wages that is in the 2001 report to now be closer to 100% of deficit.

And indeed I am told that a no wage cap 75 year run out ends up quite positive under the intermediate projection. But God forbid Bush would allow the Social Security Administration Actuaries to publish such a projection.

And God forbid that the payroll tax be applied to income - including unearned income - rather than just wages. The Bush mantra is to not tax the 90% of their yearly income that is investment income.

http://www.ssab.gov/NEW/Publications/Financing/actionshouldbetaken.pdf


Report from the Social Security Advisory Board -- page 21


Increase the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax.

In 2001, earnings in employment covered by Social Security that
exceed $80,400 are neither subject to payroll tax nor considered for
calculating benefits. This "contribution and benefit base" increases
automatically each year with increases in the average wage. Currently,
about 84 percent of all covered earnings are below the base, but this
percentage has been falling from about 90 percent in 1983 and is
projected to continue to fall to about 83 percent in 2010.

Making all earnings covered by Social Security subject to the payroll
tax beginning in 2002, but retaining the current law limit for benefit
computations (in effect removing the link between earnings and
benefits at higher earnings levels), would eliminate the deficit. If
benefits were to be paid on the additional earnings, 88 percent of the
deficit would be eliminated.

Making 90 percent of earnings covered by Social Security subject to
the payroll tax and paying benefits on the additional earnings
(phasing in these increases in 2002-2011) would eliminate 37 percent
of the deficit. This would increase the estimated maximum amount of
earnings subject to Social Security taxes in 2011 to $241,200,
compared to the projected level of $125,100 under present law (in
current dollars). These changes would cause higher-paid workers and
their employers to pay higher taxes. They would mean that higher-paid
workers (those above the current taxable maximum) would receive a
lower average rate of return on their Social Security taxes than they
do today.

[BlueInRed]

29. Thanks!

I've seen this, but didn't have it at my fingertips. I really appreciate you posting it.

[BlueInRed]

28. yeah, I've heard that, but it's

just a sales pitch to protect the rich from taxation, like everything else. I'm surprised you buy the argument. The program is designed to have current wage earners of ALL stripes pay for a base benefit for everyone. Some get more in comparison to what they put in, some get less. The guy making 79,900 year after year put in more than the guy making 45,000, but their benefits are not that different. Yeah the benefits are adjusted, but not to the degree of the difference in contributions.

It's basically a debate about progressive vs regressive taxation. The reason anyone even argues about it is upper middle class people who jointly make over 80K want the exemption, as it benefits them a bit.

[nancyharris]

32. It is not simply a sales pitch

It is a hard fact. Is it fair to force someone earning 250,000 a year to contribute 3 times more to the Social Security system than a person earning 80,000 a year when they both receive the same retirement benefits? Social Security is supposed to be an insurance program not a benefit program.

People under 30 years of age should wake up to the fact that they are about to support the vast baby boomer bubble of retirees that will become eligible from 2010 through 2035. It now takes 3 current workers to support 1 retiree.

[BlueInRed]

45. LOL

Many others, including myself, reached the opposite conclusion based on the same facts. It is a matter of basic beliefs, assumptions and the spin you choose. It's just as fair as asking the 80K contributor to pay 4 times as much as the 20K contributor, as the 80K contributor doesn't get 4 times the SS benefit.

I think, as do many others, the wealthy are getting off way, way too easy on FICA taxes. If there is a cap, it should be a heck of a lot higher than 80K.
Hard fact....LOL!

[nancyharris]

56. LOL2

<”80K contributor doesn't get 4 times the SS benefit.”>

That is also patently unfair. As long as Social Security is a federal insurance program (and not a federal charity) output should be commiserate with input – as all forms of insurance are. Unfortunately, this particular insurance program is governed by politicians who curry favor with retirees for their votes by raising benefits without raising income.

Social Security is a pyramid scheme that works, as long as the base of the pyramid continues to expand to provide funds for those farther up the pyramid. Once the “baby boomer” generation swells the ranks of retirees starting in 2007 the base will no longer expand fast enough to pay for their retirement benefits. Unless something is done soon the only alternative will be to either decrease the benefits or raise the Social Security tax.

There are simply no Democrat or Republican politicians that would ever support raising either the cap or the level of taxes. It would be political suicide.

Don’t forget, every dollar you pay into Social Security is matched by your employer. When you raise the cap or raise the social security tax you are also raising it on the employer – which includes millions of small businesses.

Facts Indeed!

[BlueInRed]

59. "SS a pyramid scheme"

Calling SS a pyramid scheme pretty much says it all about your viewpoint.

Since I'm self-employed, no employer matches my contributions. Assumptions, assumptions. I know plenty about the contributions and their impact on employers since I'm self-employed and a lawyer. I actually pay more into the system than most because of the self-employment rates.

I and everyone my age has been paying in more than required to fund current retirees for about 20 years. In the same time frame, the SS "surplus" was used as justification for tax cuts on the wealthy and cap gains cuts. In essence, our excess FICA funds were diverted to the wealthy. I never heard the wealthy who got the tax cuts complain about the inequity of the boomers overpaying for 20 years and then getting zapped when it's their turn to collect. It's also interesting that many don't seem to care that the boomers have paid more (a greater percentage) into the system than any other group and now some are trying to make sure those same people get less than any before them. If boomers got what was "commiserate with input", we'd be owed way more than we're going to get regardless of whether reforms are enacted.

As for solvency, it is through 2035 or so, last I looked. Hardly an emergency. Although with Bush's policies, it probably has moved up to 2027 or thereabouts.

[nancyharris]

61. Really?

If you are indeed a lawyer then you should be perfectly aware that the surplus Social Security has been funneled into the general fund since it was first enacted. This has spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations and control of Congress. You should also be aware that the surplus money (like all general fund money) is ALSO used to support a myriad of social programs that would never be funded without that tax source.

If you are indeed a lawyer you surely have some understanding of the Social Security tax burden currently levied on small business that is equal to the SS tax paid by all of their employees combined – AND they receive NO benefits. This is the epitome of regressive taxation. At least when you retire you will get some return on your SS insurance payments. The small business owner pays 25 times what you pay and receives NOTHING in return.

BTW – the insolvency year for SS is 2013 – and it has and it has nothing to do with general tax rates.

[OrwellwasRight]

64. Wrong on the facts, wrong on the law.

What does small business get out of the SS tax system? Plenty. It provides income support to the disabled; provides income support for the elderly. Thus, it ensures customers for the small businesses. Of course businesses should pay payroll taxes and contribute to the retirement of their workers, especially when the majority of employers off no pension plans whatsoever.

On a separate note, American businesses reap so many benefits from just being in America: cheap energy costs, subsidized road building, universal education, few enforced holiday/vacation rules, etc. , they should be happy to pay taxes just for the benefit of being here.

What is the insolvency year for SS? 2042 according to SS Actuaries; 2052 according to the CBO. In either case, 75% of benefits could be paid after the insolvency year for quite a while.

Has our Social Security money been funneled in to the General Fund? Not exactly. Any funds "borrowed" where borrowed through the purchase of treasury bonds, which have been and continue to be paid back with interest. The money is completely accounted for.

BTW, not all lawyers speciialize in or even know about the SS system. But many, in fact, are sole proprietors of their own businesses, paying payroll taxes themselves.

[BlueInRed]

68. Thank you

I knew I had seen the figures, and I appreciate you posting them. Thanks!

[nancyharris]

70. On the other hand

<”Of course businesses should pay payroll taxes and contribute to the retirement of their workers, especially when the majority of employers off no pension plans whatsoever.”>

That sounds interesting. I think lawyers should pay an extra tax on their income to cover the cost of the judicial system. After all, they benefit from the legal infrastructure paid for on the backs of hard-working citizens.

On a separate note, American Lawyers reap so many benefits from just being in America: a constabulary that creates their clientele, court rooms and law libraries, cheap energy costs, subsidized road building, universal education, few enforced holiday/vacation rules, etc. , they should be happy to pay EXTRA taxes just for the benefit of being here.

[BlueInRed]

73. gee, let's take that to it's logical conclusion

with all the various professions and businesses, including doctors, real estate developers, big defense contractors, HMOs, etc. Every profession/business reaps special benefits and puts special burdens on our system here. Are you equally happy with putting a special tax on Halliburton for the benefits they've gotten or with one on HCA and the benefits it has received from the medical system? Just curious.

[nancyharris]

78. It your logic, not mine.

If you think that small businesses should pay and extra tax for Social Security just because they derive the benefits from being in America – then YES, I think lawyers should pay an extra tax to support the judicial infrastructure, just because they derive the benefits from being in America. That’s fair, isn’t it?

[OrwellwasRight]

81. Read posts carefully.

'If you think that small businesses should pay and extra tax"

No one in any post said small businesses should pay an extra tax.

You made the statement that the small business gets nothing out of the payroll taxes it pays. I explained the benefits that small businesses get (which by the way, could apply to businesses of all sizes) in return for paying those taxes.

As an aside, I listed many benefits that "American businesses" get. That's ALL AMERICAN BUSINESSES (small, large whatever). And I didn't say they should pay anything EXTRA for what they get; I said they should be happy to pay taxes. Thatb is, they should stop complaining about what they pay. I did not propose some kind of surcharge; I said, basically, that businesses should stop whining because they are getting a big bang for their buck. You can disagree, but I have made my opinion clear.

If you have an ax to grind, just grind it. Don't put false words in people's mouths.

[nancyharris]

86. No false words

<"No one in any post said small businesses should pay an extra tax">

You want to raise the SS cap. Raising the cap INCREASES the SS tax small businesses have to pay to the SS fund. Don't you see the connection?

[OrwellwasRight]

93. Yes I see the connection, but that is not an "extra tax"

It is the same tax that everyone else would pay (individual, small business, large business, whatever). If there were a lift in the cap or even an abolishment of the cap, there would be an increase in an existing tax, but no "extra" tax, and it would apply to all who are currently subject to the tax.

Why do you seem to support a special exemption? Your argument seems to want special treatment for small businesses. Is that what you support?

[BlueInRed]

84. no yours

I NEVER said we should tax businesses (other than to show how you're now singling out lawyers for special taxes and that the idea is ludicrous). You created that one all on your own, then ran away with it. You should read more carefully AND pay attention to which person you are responding to and what that person has previously said. We're not simply interchangeable because we both happen to disagree with you.

[nancyharris]

88. Do

you want to increase the Social Security cap?
If so,
you want to increase the SS tax paid by employers - Don't you see that connection???????

[OrwellwasRight]

74. No, lawyers should pay the same taxes as any business and they do.

All citizens benefit equally from the judicial system whether they use it or not (just like my argument above about national parks, jails, etc.).

I never said nor did I imply that some business should have to pay some extra tax that the legal business should not have to pay, so I am not sure what is motivating your statement.

Because lawyers in private practice are businesses (some large, some small), all of my comments about taxes and contributing to society apply to them, just as they apply to all businesses from liquor stores to doctor's offices to dairy farms to coal mines.

As an aside, I'm not sure why you have a picture of Kucinich as your avatar when your positions don't seem to support his. You seem to be against the social security system, have a contempt for the legal profession, and an aversion to contributing taxes for the benefit of your fellow man.

[nancyharris]

80. Benefit?

<"All citizens benefit equally from the judicial system ">

And how do small businesses benefit equally from Social Security?

<"your avatar when your positions don't seem to support his">

Trust me, Dennis Kucinich does NOT want to raise Social Security taxes on small businesses.

[OrwellwasRight]

83. I already answered that. Several times.

You obviously do not agree, which is your right.

Nothing I have seen or read from the K-man leads me to believe that he wants to exempt businesses from contributing to the retirement of America's seniors, and that is what it seems you would like.

[BlueInRed]

67. 2013 is a false figure

As for your comment on the general tax rates, it appears you are confused about the self employment tax, which is of course separate and distinct from income taxes, and requires the self-employed pay both the normal portion of FICA, plus approximately 1/2 of what the employer would normally pay.

I understand it all perfectly well, despite your inferences otherwise. I understand the uses of the money, the idea of the trust fund fiction, etc. The excess payments were not intended to be used that way, although they have been. I don't have a problem with the money being used to help the needy, but I do have a problem with giving more tax cuts to the uber-wealthy at my expense and the expense of the middle class. As do most of us here. Your viewpoint is definitely not in line with most Democrats on SS.

And yes, I am "indeed a lawyer" - Order of the Coif, Law Review, published numerous times, president of my local bar association, etc. Are you inferring I am not? While I do not specialize in SS, I do know enough to know much of what you say is false.

[nancyharris]

76. On the contrary

<"Your viewpoint is definitely not in line with most Democrats on SS">

I think you will find that the majority of Democrats in Congress are opposed to raising the Social Security tax on small businesses.

[BlueInRed]

79. That is hardly the sum of your viewpoint

You've covered a lot of ground, way beyond small businesses. I would guess that 80-90% of what you have posted in this thread is in opposition to what most of the Democrats here support. JIMO. I guess we could do a poll. Also, I didn't say to target and tax small businesses; that is entirely your argument and an extensive twisting of the posts to reach the conclusion. This thread started about a cap and you tried to convert it to a tax on businesses. A big stretch. If that was a concern, the law removing the tax cap could easily exempt employers from matching over 80K.

Also, what is your published source for 2013, since you insist it is accurate. The source of the alternate figures has already been posted.

[nancyharris]

82. Oh

<“Also, I didn't say to target and tax small businesses; that is entirely your argument”>

Sorry, but that is exactly YOUR argument. You want to raise the cap on Social Security. Raising the cap on Social Security raises the tax paid by small businesses into the Social Security fund.

<” If that was a concern, the law removing the tax cap could easily exempt employers from matching over 80K.”

So, now you have some concern for small businesses. You are willing to exempt them from the cap. Why? Do you think it is not fair? If so, why is it not fair?

[BlueInRed]

87. No it's not, but you insist on putting words in people's mouths.

Raising the cap on SS directly affects the earner and that was always my point. I wonder why you are ignoring that.

Acting like I was never concerned about small businesses is ridiculous. I am not the person who brought that aspect into the discussion, nor argued it vigorously, although another poster did argue it with you in detail. And I do agree with their posts, but you have zero idea what I think about the impact on small business. Except when you decided to attack lawyers -- then I pointed out how all businesses derive benefits.

If you want to argue about something I actually said, not what you claim I said, fine. But you need to stick with exactly what I posted, in context.

[nancyharris]

89. Yes, it is

<"Raising the cap on SS directly affects the earner and that was always my point. I wonder why you are ignoring that.">

Raising the cap on SS directly affects the employer and that was always my point. I wonder why you are ignoring that.

[BlueInRed]

91. I didn't; you did

Like the other poster, I've answered this many times, but you just don't like the answer.

I also notice you didn't post the source of your figures. I think I'll wait for the answers on all the other stuff before I waste more of my time on you.

[nancyharris]

96. Here

Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs issued by the SS and Medicare Boards of Trustees.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Look about 2/3 of the way into the document under “Key Dates for the Trust Funds”
The first year outgo exceeds income excluding interest (which is paid in taxes) is 2018 for Social Security (old Age retirement), 2008 for disability insurance, 2004 for hospital insurance

[BlueInRed]

98. From the first paragraph...

The very first paragraph of the report confirms what OrwellwasRight posted about the solvency date:

"Exhaustion in trust fund reserves for HI in 2019 and for Social Security in 2042". Which is exactly why we've been paying more all these years, so that the trust fund reserves will be sufficient to deal with the boomers retirement. I was born in the very last year of boomers and I'll be 82 then, if I live that long. That's 37 years to solve the problem, which is NOT an urgent crisis.

Beyond that, I think we have more than covered our respective opinions and I'm going to let other DUers chime in on this and see where the groundswell of opinion falls. It will be interesting to see how they line up.

[OrwellwasRight]

62. Interesting viewpoint

"As long as Social Security is a federal insurance program (and not a federal charity) output should be commiserate with input – as all forms of insurance are. "

Really? What about all those years I paid my car insurance and I never got into an accident ? What about all the money I pay for health insurance and I go to the doctor MAYBE twice a year.

These are facts, too. I guess they are just not facts that support your point.

SS is insurance; it is insurance against poverty. Those who make less need more from it; those who make more need less, and we ALL need to contribute to keep the system flush. We don't know at age 25 who we might be or what we might need at 70.

And just because a politician would "never support raising the cap" doesn't mean that is the right position.

A single man can be righteous. He doesn't need a crowd.

[nancyharris]

66. Another viewpoint

<”Really? What about all those years I paid my car insurance and I never got into an accident ? What about all the money I pay for health insurance and I go to the doctor MAYBE twice a year”>

You had the choice to either purchase your car and health insurance or not. You decided how much insurance to purchase and the premium you paid was based on the level of coverage you decided you wanted. The more coverage you desired, the greater the cost to you.

That’s how insurance works.

[OrwellwasRight]

69. Nevertheless, the payout is NOT necessarily commensurate with the payin.

Furthermore, SS is not voluntary, because it, like most other types of insurance is cheaper if everyone opts in. Thus, we have a bigger risk of pool of those who will die young or old, become disabled or not, or have high or low incomes from which to contribute.

Because we are a just and compassionate society, we are not going to allow anyone (to the extent that we have influence over this) to choose to impoverish themselves by choosing not to particiapte in the system. We tax them and their employers to provide a basic minimal income support in old age so that we don't have 80 years old dropping dead in factories because they could not afford to retire.

Car insurance, btw, is NOT optional; many people wouldn't have it if the law didn't say they had to. Health insurance is also not optional for many employers (including mine): if I cannot prove I have health insurance from another source, it is deducted from my paycheck. That's just how it is.

[nancyharris]

71. Why

<”We tax them and their employers to provide a basic minimal income support in old age so that we don't have 80 years old dropping dead in factories because they could not afford to retire”>

Why tax the employers?

[OrwellwasRight]

77. Why not?

They benefit from the labor of the worker; they use up valuable years of that person's productive life; they should pay something for it.

And again repeating myself: private pension plans are not mandatory in this country, so this is the only contribution most employers make to the retirement of those they employ.

My question to you is why don't you believe they should?

[nancyharris]

85. You seem to forget

<”They benefit from the labor of the worker; they use up valuable years of that person's productive life; they should pay something for it.”>

They pay their employees a salary for their labor and time. They provide the means for people to feed themselves and their family, provide shelter, clothing and medicine. In many cases they provide health insurance, medical leave and vacations.

Why is it the responsibility of the employer to provide for someone’s retirement? Why isn’t it the primary responsibility of the family and children and the individuals themselves?

[OrwellwasRight]

90. Nope. I didn't forget.

Retirement security is the responsibility of us all, so we all pay. The workers pay AND the employers pay because both benefit from not having old and feeble people who are unable to care for themselves. I don't drive a car to work, but I'm not running around saying that I want to pay lower taxes because I don't benefit from pothole fixing. I understand that we pay taxes so that we can "promote the general welfare." (or so says the Constitution)

Some employers in this country offer the things you mention (health insurance, vacations, etc.), and that is great! but many don't. So as I said, SS is often one of the few (or even only) benefits to which businesses contribute.

And assuming that wages are high enough that people can afford shelter, clothing and medicine is making a lot of assumptions. Most people on food stamps work for a living; most kids on CHIP health insurance have working parents. If we could guarantee every family a living wage, we might have less need for a SS program, but that is an entirely differnet argument, and not one I am interested in having. I do know from experience, though, that business owners fight actively against living wage programs as well, so I am not sure that would get anywhere.

We live in a society, not a Hobbesian free-for-all. We have responsibilities to ourselves and to each other to contribute. I am surprised you posit otherwise.

[nancyharris]

94. I agree

<”Retirement security is the responsibility of us all, so we all pay”>

Yes, but some pay much more than others. Employers pay an amount equal to that paid by all of their employees combined. If it is the responsibility of ALL of us (which BTW, I do believe), then why isn’t the burden placed equally on ALL of us?

[Debs]

95. Did I have a choice of paying

Health and car insurance? NO car insurance is legally mandated in my state, and health insurance is taken directly out of my check

[Bake]

99. I think you meant "commensurate," not "commiserate."

Ulless that was a Freudian slip.
Hmmmm.


Bake

[OrwellwasRight]

54. Yes it is fair.

Well all pay taxes for benefits that we don't see personally. I pay taxes for Natl Parks I will never go to, for welfare programs I will never be a client of, for jails I will never be locked up in. So what. That is what it means to live in society.

SS enables spouses and children who never paid in to the system to get benefits when one of the parents die. It allows workers who are disabled to live, even if they only worked for a couple years before their disability. It is not supposed to be, and never has been a one-for-one investment-payout program.

Is it fair for me to pay 7.5% of my entire income PLUS inocme tax for my SS & Medicare when Bill Gates probably pay .0001% of his income for SS&Medicare? I don't think so. That means I take home a LOT less than my gross pay.

It's is not progressive v. regressive. It is regressive v. proportional. Nobody is arguing that the wealthy should pay more than everybody else, just that they should pay the same percentage as everybody else.

Getting rid of the exemption for the wealthy would make the system solvent in perpetuity. It will keep us from having to cut benefits or privatize the system leaving us at risk of a stock crash on the even of retirement. Plus, who could afford the "really good" stock fund managers? Believe me, not the minimum wage folks.

Yes, Bill Gates should pay on all his income and you should pay on your whole $250,000.

[nancyharris]

57. Fair is indeed fair

<”Nobody is arguing that the wealthy should pay more than everybody else, just that they should pay the same percentage as everybody else.”>

That sounds fair. Would you also agree that SS benefits should be raised for the wealthy so that the government payout is the same percentage of their total wealth as those earning 20,000?

[OrwellwasRight]

60. Nope, I wouldn't.

My post was about contributions in, not payments out. The cap on SS taxes is a shield for the rich and it always has been. The system was NEVER intended to pay out on a proportional basis because that would defeat its purpose: to ensure that the elderly would not have to live in poverty.

Because it is difficult for those earning $20,000 to put any of their income away in savings, they need more income replacement than those who make $100,000 a year, who do have discretionary income they can invest/save to supplement their SS. Thus, SS was always designed to give its biggest benefits (in relation to the amount paid in) to workers with lower incomes and smaller benefits (in relation to the amount paid in) to workers who had had higher incomes.

Now, however, the system is out of balance and the exemption on high incomes is not something we can afford anymore.

Furthermore, if you go back to my original post, you'll note that I accept the proposition (as do many Democrats) that taxes are NOT a "what's in it for me" proposition. Democrats don't generally see taxes as an investment and measure returns in comparison to what somebody else gets. If that were the case, we'd support things like school vouchers and cuts to Medicaid and welfare.

We pay taxes to ensure that we live in a just society. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society."

Why aren't we proud to contribute to our society?

[nancyharris]

63. Question

<”Now, however, the system is out of balance…”>

And what do you think caused the system to be out of balance?

[OrwellwasRight]

65. The income cap. Lifting it would fix the insolvency. nt.

[nancyharris]

72. But

The income gap has been their since SS was started. Why is it out of "balance" now?

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Average lifespan has nearly doubled. nt.

[Debs]

92. Yes it is fair

To whom much is given, much is expected. Taxes are what we pay for society. Its fair they pay more becuase they can. And living in a decent society costs more than a society where economic darwinism rules.

[Yupster]

34. Social security is already means tested

in the way the payout formula works.

The bendpoints are incredibly progressive in the payout formula so a person who averages $ 60,000 per year his whole life does not get anywhere near triple the payout that a person who averaged $ 20,000 over his whole life. He doesn't even get twice as much.

The benefit formula grandly overweights the guys at the bottom and underweights the guys at the top.

Most of us would agree with that which is fine, but it should be recognized that while the income cap makes the funding mechanism regressive, the payout formula is very progressive already.

[BlueInRed]

46. Yes, exactly

[despairing optimist]

50. Means testing for SS benefits isn't necessary because

the IRS does it on form 1040. Actually, it's on a worksheet that people receiving SS benefits have to fill in to see if they need to pay any taxes on their benefits. Generally, half their benefits are taxable if their adjusted gross income exceeds $25,000, and the benefits are taxed progressively. In effect that is a means test. If someone has a very high AGI, their SS benefits will pretty much be taxed away.

That's another reason why personal savings accounts based on dividend and interest income will hurt the poor and help the rich. Bush is trying to end taxation on all such income, reversing the redistribution of wealth from bottom to top. It's like an earned income credit for the well-to-do disguised as a prop for individual ownership. Yes, lower mortals will own their own accounts, but naturally the biggest prizes go to those with the biggest hoards to begin with. What a coincidence that those people happen to be the same ones who are earning over 80K a year now.

[InvisibleBallots]

25. Cut the Tax Cap!

Why should I pay SS tax on 100% of my income, while rich people only pay some lower percentage on their income, and don't have to pay a dime of Social Security on their investments.

Cut the tax cap.

[papau]

27. Amen to that idea! Now to sell it to the public!

:-)

[DemBones DemBones]

43. The public needs to wake up and realize that

their chances of ever being in the high income groups they aspire to are slim and therefore it's stupid to support not taxing the high income folks on all their income just in case they ever become high income folks.

[OrwellwasRight]

55. I think we sell it like this:

"their chances of ever being in the high income groups they aspire to" are slim if our laws favor those who are ALREADY rich. That the Republican plan.

However, the Democratic proposals level the playing field and give people at the bottom and in the middle a better shot at achieving the financial success they desire.

[EVDebs]

33. Right on ! Raise the cap from $90K to $150K and let's hear some

more of that 'let them eat cake' from the GOP b.s. Madame deFarge is getting her knitting needles ready and front row seat as the GOP shoots itself in the foot BIG TIME on Social Insecurity... next fiasco coming up is the Medicare deficit (which is REAL) !

[Cobalt Violet]

31. They're hoping we all turn on ourselves.

Sadly some will.

[EVDebs]

36. This is how they paid for Reagan's 81 tax cuts, by raiding SS

in the 82-83 SS reforms with Greenspan. They are now into Act II with many of the same characters selling fear and doom for SS. This is how they want to destroy the last vestige of FDR's New Deal.

With Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest, they have to pay for those tax cuts somehow, and now they've made matters worse for themselves by raising spending...

GOP is on the ropes and the REAL spending problems lie with Medicare ! This is why GDP's 14% of which is healthcare related is being cut out of benefits packages by globalizing companies ! It adds up almost to $1.85 trillion....the same as Bush's tax cuts ! (US GDP is about $11 trillion in 2003). See The Benefits Trap at
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_29/b3892001_mz001.htm

""Perhaps most important, in the global economy, long-established U.S. companies are competing against younger rivals here and abroad that pay little or nothing toward their workers' retirement, giving the older companies a huge incentive to dump their (pension and healthcare) plans""

The government is fobbing off ALL payment responsiblity to the individual while at the same time you have reasonable financiers -- Warren Buffett for example-- calling for an INCREASE in Corporate Taxes (see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0306-01.htm )

[OrwellwasRight]

30. Actually, there is a Republican sub-group of privatizers being condemned

as the "free lunch" crowd because they want to add the private accounts with simultaneously reducing the level of promised benefits. I believe this is what York was referring to.

There are two basic Republican privatization plans:

Devote 2% of current FICA (Social Security) taxes to private accounts, but the remaining amount would go into a SS system much like it is today, with eventual SS benefits being determined using a "wage-rate inflation" formula. This plan will have the worst impact on the federal budget deficit, and that is why the supporters (the more moderate Republicans who are trying to please Wall Street without really scaring people with the dismantling of SS).

Devote 2% of current FICA (Social Security) taxes to private accounts, but simultaneously reduce the promised benefits you will reap from the rest of your social security taxes. This is being sold on the false premise that gains from the 2% invested in the stock market will more than make up for the reduction in the basic benefit. This position is what the Admin supports.

The Washington Post had a great article about this on Thursday or Friday.

[klyon]

38. if we invest 2% in stock market how much will it go up?

this is the reason for their interest, rich repugs want more return on their money while playing golf

they are not really concerned about peoples suffering

KL

[OrwellwasRight]

40. It won't go up at all.

That's why I said it is a false promise.

And it really won't change anything for the wealthiest in this country except that they will feel better about all us peons "taking more responsibility for ourselves and our own retirement."

The wealthiest already can invest as much as they want in the stock market, annuity plans, bonds, hedge funds, or other investments of their choice. They won't even feel a difference in getting back 2% on the first 80,000 of their income.

But the research shows that Wall Street fund managers will make at least $39 billion (New York Times article) and as much as $940 billion dollars (Kerry campaign statistic) on management fees. Those fees will be deducted from our alleged "increased return." Wall Strreet will be the real winner.

The other winner will be the Republican party and its quest to dismantle the New Deal and all social programs.

[OrwellwasRight]

39. I had a couple of typos and it is too late to edit

Free-lunchers are Repubs who:

"want to add the private accounts withOUT simultaneously reducing the level of promised benefits."

"that is why the supporters" I should have added: of this plan are called "free lunchers."


Anyway, both plans screw with the idea os Social Security as a true insurance plan, both make our retirement income less secure, and both will put billions if not trillions of dollars over the years into the Wall Street coffers, benefitting the haves more than the have-nots.

Keep your eye on the debate within the Republican party as to which plan will be the model

[LittleClarkie]

35. Who said it?

I want names, damn it!

Feels like a nice juicy LTTE is coming on.

[Q]

37. No matter how this argument is framed...there are certain FACTS...

...that must be recognized. One of them is that Social Security is a separate TAX on wages that was intended to be used for one purpose. You'll have to do a lot of searching for a worker that doesn't believe that he's paying taxes to help in his retirement.

This is ALL ABOUT the ruling class that wants to get their hands on the one fund they haven't been able to use to their own advantage. Sadly...with the Bushies in control, a rubber stamp congress and enough Dem collaborators....it just may happen whether the people like it or not.

[solarspa]

53. We all need to buy guns nt

[robbedvoter]

41. The debt welchers are crying thief while robbing us again

Remember, they did borrow from social security. Over and over. Now, dismantling your lender seems pretty convenient, ain't it?


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_02.php#004327
(snip)
But about $3 trillion of those dollars we needed to fund the 1980s and 1990s deficits we managed to borrow closer to home. We borrowed it from the Social Security (and a few other government) trust fund(s).

Almost the entirety of President Bush's Social Security phase-out plan comes down to a simple proposition: finding out how not to pay it back."

Why aren't the Dems making this argument? Too busy photo-opping in Iraq?

[proudbluestater]

42. You knew it was coming when they ended "welfare as we know it."

The REAL free lunchers are the top 1% and the corporations who get all the tax breaks and corporate welfare. Those groups who reap all manner of free lunches already will be the ones to benefit when Social Security is abolished.

[DemBones DemBones]

44. That never should have happened but the future beneficiaries

pay into Social Security so it's quite different. Not that that will stop the Bushistas. And if anyone wants to use Clinton cutting welfare as an example, let me be the first to say Clinton was WRONG to do that. Also WRONG on NAFTA.

[blondeatlast]

48. Social Security=Group Benefit?

Like your vacation, health plan, etc?

A benefit of living in the USA?

[Zinfandel]

49. Does that include every fucking Republican who's collected Social Security

[Sparkly]

58. Or any Republicans who've paid it for decades and expect it to be there

as promised?