Steve Forbes is upset Bush may compromise with dems and elminiate social security wage cap

[Herman Munster]

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/1225/023_print.html

The Bush administration is rumored to be ready to cut a deal with Democrats next year to "save" Social Security. Future benefits would be means-tested, the cap on income currently taxed ($97,500 in 2007) would be lifted or eliminated (as it already has been for Medicare), the age at which beneficiaries can draw benefits would be raised to, say, 70 or 75, and the way future benefits would be indexed would change. Personal accounts? There might be tiny ones, but the incoming Congress' more likely preference would be Super IRAs that people could contribute to in order to supplement future benefits. They would have no connection to the Social Security system.

[Parche]

1. forbes

He is a rich snob, that is the only reason, and a right wing constipated conservative

[Hand]

9. My wife's observation about Forbes:

"He looks like he masturbates a lot." :rofl:

[dflprincess]

13. I don't know what he's worried about.

FICA is only paid on earned income not any dividend or interest income.

[bluestateguy]

2. I will not support raising the retirement age

That is systematically unfair to blue collar workers who are physically worn out at age 65.

Personal accoutns? People can set up their own accounts, but not with Social Security money.

[Warpy]

3. I'll be pissed off if that's the only way they "save" Social Security

What they need to do is get the 40% of OASDI deductions that aren't needed to support retired people now OUT OF CONGRESS'S GREASY HANDS.

Unless they do that, it's just more cosmetics to disguise what tax cuts to the Paris Hiltons of the country have done to the treasury.

Don't let them put lipstick on that pig. INSIST that they get OASDI overpayments OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

[wicket]

7. Do we know how much has been looted by putting it into the general fund?

And how do they plan on paying it back? God this just makes me so mad :grr: :grr:

[Warpy]

24. Seven to ten trillion

and they have NO intention of EVER paying it back.

That's why I call Boomers the "Robbed Generation."

[OzarkDem]

4. Someone has to pay for the Iraq debacle

Social Security used to be solvent, remember? Back in 2000, before Bush was elected.

[Target_For_Exterm]

6. We ought to know. We've been paying for it twice.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Means testing is a problem

Would this mean that some retirees would be forced to sell their homes in order to get a livable amount of SS money? The value of such property is misleading as in indication of worth.

I'd rather see the benefits increased, the retirement age lowered, the cap eliminated, and the tax made progressive.

[ieoeja]

8. Why the hell raise the age?

First, Social Security is only in danger if the US economy continues functioning as it has under idiot. If it runs anywhere close to how it ran on average for the four decades before idiot took office, Social Security would run as-is into the foreseeable future.

Second, even if the economy never regains its former robustness, lifting the cap should be enough to guarantee Social Security into the future assuming the general fund doesn't default on the loans the gov't took from Social Security.

I have a better idea. Eliminate the cap altogether then LOWER the retirement age. What's the fucking point to technological advancements if we are not going to use them to increase our leisure time?

[Ellis Wyatt]

11. Everyone was dead at 65

When the age was set at 65, many people weren't living to see it.

Now the average age is into the 80s. Just like you need to index the benefits as prices increase, you need to index the age as lifespans increase.

It's only logical.

[ieoeja]

18. But we can afford to keep it lower.

Again, WHAT is the point of technological advancement if we do not use it to increase our leisure time? Every year we hear about productivity increasing. That means every year we produce more with less. Which means we SHOULD be working less.

Something is clearly broken. And it ain't Social Security. Let's fix the real problem.

[brook]

20. As someone without

many assets, working well past 70 - I can assure you, indexing the age is simply another way to make sure the upper class, with many assets and top-drawer medical plans, can get their 'mad money' every month. Interestingly, when my job proved so strenuous that I had to have physical therapy, I was told I was too old to qualify for disability. This, despite that I've been paying into it for nearly 50 years.

Two doctors refused to see me recently because I have Medicare and Medical (what they call Medi-Medi).
When I said I would pay the difference between Medicare and cost, I was informed that's against the law.

So, where's the logic?

[kineneb]

21. problem - age discrimination

those over 45 have a difficult time getting decent jobs with benefits. Try living without medical insurance from 45 to 70. That assumes one stays healthy enough to live that long.

I know, I am there. And I don't expect it to get better.

My publicly-funded "low-income insurance" kicks in only after I spend down $250 per month. That is on an income of $1200/month for two. I am 48 and caregiver for my disabled husband.

[LSK]

17. I agree n/t

[Burma Jones]

10. We'll see.........

Means Testing changes Social Security from Insurance to, to put it bluntly, Welfare. That will cause a lot of problems. I believe raising the cap on income is a no brainier. Folks like me would appreciate Super IRAs and other ways to stash money away tax deferred or tax free. I've never assumed that Social Security would be there for me when I am 70, I just figure that the Boomers and the "Greatest Generation" would get their benefits, regardless of their need, and the rest of us will have to shoulder that burden. It would be a lot easier to shoulder if the mega rich (assets of, say $200 million plus) paid for the privilege of having so much low cost labor around, if you get my drift.....

[Target_For_Exterm]

12. Republicans are already calling it welfare.

That's the Republican way. The poor pay through the nose to fund tax cuts for the rich.

[Burma Jones]

16. That's 'cause they're Liars

Start F-ing around with Social Security and you will see the 'Pukes lose even more support......

[ieoeja]

19. You're right. And we don't need a means test.

And I would almost bet it was a Republican who came up with that idea. They did say Bush would "compromise" which means he's getting something out of it. This may be one of theirs.

[aquart]

14. Flat tax Forbes has never spent a day not rich. Not so much as a second.

[LSK]

15. fuck you Forbes

I repeat FUCK YOU FORBES.

[selfdestructive]

22. all that money forbes has and he couldnt even fix his eyes.

f-him

[Old and In the Way]

23. Nows the time to get aggressive on Social Security.

Democrats need to go on the offensive and lay out a clear agenda on what they will do on this program. They need to take the cap off of contributions and make sure that it is self funded while making it impossible to co-mingle the assets with the general budget numbers. Then let the Republicans vote against it....I think they are bluffing on their opposition. When the cards are laid on the table, they'll have to go along or explain it to the voters next cycle.