1
   

Great Article on Social security (The Truth)

 
 
sss2333
 
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 02:44 pm
This article explains the whole story about social security and the baby boomers. It also shows how greenspan is kissing Bush's butt to keep his job. Now greenspan wants to cut benefits, that is ridiculous. The boomers have been paying extra for 20 years to pay for their retirement. They should have put that money in a lock box as Gore suggested. The funny part is all the republicans hate social security yet they have no problem using that money to pay for the tax cuts. The congress should pass a law making social security money untouchable for anything but payouts to retirees.

------------

The Social Security Promise Not Yet Kept

SOCIAL Security retirement benefits are going to have to be cut, Alan Greenspan announced last
week, because there just is not enough money to pay the promised benefits. President Bush said those
already retired or "near retirement age'' should not worry. They will get their promised benefits.

That, in short form, was the story carried on front pages and television news programs across the country.

But there is an element that was forgotten in the rush of news. It dates back 21 years to the events that
catapulted Mr. Greenspan into national prominence and led to his becoming chairman of the Federal
Reserve.

Since 1983, American workers have been paying more into Social Security than it has paid out in benefits,
about $1.8 trillion more so far. This year Americans will pay about 50 percent more in Social Security
taxes than the government will pay out in benefits.

Those taxes were imposed at the urging of Mr. Greenspan, who was chairman of a bipartisan commission
that in 1983 said that one way to make sure Social Security remains solvent once the baby boomers
reached retirement age was to tax them in advance.

On Mr. Greenspan's recommendation Social Security was converted from a pay-as-you-go system to one
in which taxes are collected in advance. After Congress adopted the plan, Mr. Greenspan rose to become
chairman of the Federal Reserve.

This year someone making $50,000 will pay $6,200 in Social Security taxes, half deducted from their
paycheck and half paid by their employer. That total is about $2,000 more than the government needs in
order to pay benefits to retirees, widows, orphans and the disabled, government budget documents show.

Full Story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/weekinreview/29john.html?pagewanted=print&position=
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 813 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 12:55 pm
I read a great article (or letter to the editor, maybe?) in the Boston Globe pointing out that all we need do is to uncap the social security cap, which is $87,000.00, and require people to pay social security on their entire earnings instead.
I think that's fair and reasonable. As it stands now, somebody earning $10 million a year pays the same amount into social security as somebody earning $87 thousand. I think they can afford it!
I also think it's a social obligation.
Another nice thing would be if people who don't need the benefits upon retirement don't take them, but I wouldn't favor a law around that, since they did contribute in the first place. I do think it's rather selfish that they do take it when they don't need it, however, but that's their perogative.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 01:14 pm
suzy wrote:
I read a great article (or letter to the editor, maybe?) in the Boston Globe pointing out that all we need do is to uncap the social security cap, which is $87,000.00, and require people to pay social security on their entire earnings instead.
I think that's fair and reasonable. As it stands now, somebody earning $10 million a year pays the same amount into social security as somebody earning $87 thousand. I think they can afford it!
I also think it's a social obligation.
Another nice thing would be if people who don't need the benefits upon retirement don't take them, but I wouldn't favor a law around that, since they did contribute in the first place. I do think it's rather selfish that they do take it when they don't need it, however, but that's their perogative.


Why do you think it's a "social obligation"?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 03:21 pm
2333
I am one who believes SS could be forever solvent if the politicians would quit trying to tinker it out of existence.
0 Replies
 
suzy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2004 04:15 pm
Why do I think it's a social obligation? You don't?
Because this is a civilized country, that's why.
When people can no longer work, they shouldn't then have to become homeless or rely on others if they've encountered misfortune in their lives.

"This security for the individual and for the family concerns itself primarily with three factors. People want decent homes to live in; they want to locate them where they can engage in productive work; and they want some safeguard against misfortunes which cannot be wholly eliminated from this man-made world of ours." -FDR
That's why.
Hey, edgar!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Great Article on Social security (The Truth)
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 03:15:14