|
|
| Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) (101925) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Mon Feb 27 13:07:04 2006, in response to Social Security Reform (Re: Subtalk politics: at a glance), posted by Andrew Kirschner on Mon Feb 27 12:50:14 2006. *Raise retirement age to 70: Sucks a little for younger folks like me, but remember that our life expecancy is higher than that for earlier generationsA very good place to start. But not enough. *Raise the cap on payroll deductions. Currently noone pays more than approx $89,000/year, no matter how much they make. This is not flat--it's deeply regressive. This means that someone making $400,000 per year is paying the same exact dollar ammount as someone making $4 billion. This is an absurd giveaway to the rich. I don't see why there has to be a cap to begin with. Contributions are indeed limited, but it should be pointed out that benefits are similarly capped. The person making $4M per year doesn't get $4M per year from SSI when they retire. They get the same as someone who made $89K per year. The issue here is whether or not SSI is "insurance" (as it was originally intended) or a welfare tax. *Demand the social security trust fund get back what is owed to it. The general federal budget has owed it untold ammounts since the Vietnam era, when it borowed from the fund to mask the costs of the war. For what purpose? So that the government could borrow more -- at increasing interest rates -- to meet current expenses? The "lockbox" is one of the most idiotic economic proposals in history. It's the equivalent of keeping your life savings stuffed in your mattress. On the other hand, it is fair to require the government to account for the future liabilities of the SSI program -- which they don't do today. |
|
|
|