Bush's plan to turn America into an ownership society

Quote:

All such government run programs involve inequities for some.

Sure there are. For instance, a divorced spouse of a Social Security recipient is entitled to benefits based on the ex-spouse's earnings. This benefit kicks in if the couple were married for 10 years (it used to be 20).

Anyhow, theoretically, 5-6 people would be able to collect, based on the earnings of only one person.

0 Replies

The problem I have with messing social security is twofold. One is that anything the present administration comes up with is bound to benefit the higher classes. (I know that is a partisan sentiment, nevertheless)

Another problem is about those that receive social security for disabilities? If people are no longer paying into social security where is the money going to come from to pay it?

At what point would this take place? At whatever point it takes place wouldn't it run the risk of cutting people off social security simply because there would not be enough money coming in to pay for those currently receiving benefits?

0 Replies

Quote:

Another problem is that what about those that receive social security for disabilities? If people are no longer paying into social security where is the money going to come from to pay it?

People who are disabled before the age of 18 get disability benefits based on their parents' earnings. If they are disabled over the age of 18, they only can get SSD if they themselves have worked the minimal amount of time that you need to collect. If they don't qualify based on their parents' or their own earnings, they need to apply for SSI, which is an entirely different program.

0 Replies

Oh, so SSI won't be affected?

0 Replies

http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/

Quote:

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):

Looks like it won't be affected, as it the money comes from a different revenue stream.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Oh, so SSI won't be affected?

So far, as I understand it, the only thing that will be privatized is the pensions, and even they will only be privatized in part. I share your concerns about the Bush administration botching this up in the implementation. But if it won't botch up Social Security privatization, it will find a way to botch up the current system in some way. So I see the wisdom of privatization and the competence of the Bush administration as independent issues.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

george
Ok, I see what you mean, but it doesn't give me more because I have to pay taxes on that money here instead of there. Anyway, I know we will never agree on this issue, so I extend my arm out to shake your hand and will see you on the trails.

Thanks, Montana. It's OK to disagree. We all look at these complex issues from different perspectives, depending on our own situations. I wish you all the best.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Another problem is about those that receive social security for disabilities? If people are no longer paying into social security where is the money going to come from to pay it?

At what point would this take place? At whatever point it takes place wouldn't it run the risk of cutting people off social security simply because there would not be enough money coming in to pay for those currently receiving benefits?

As others have said, SSI wouldn't be touched. You also seem to be greatly overstating the case with regard to SS's existance. The most extensive proposal thusfar is to allow people to transfer 15% of their current SS payments into private accounts and even that isn't the most likely scenario. The plan that has the most support allows a person to move only 4% of their current withholdings. People will still be paying into SS for generations to come.

If that 4% plan comes about then the difference would have to be paid from current general revenues. IOW, we pay for it now instead of passing it off to our children/grandchildren.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Montana wrote:
george
Ok, I see what you mean, but it doesn't give me more because I have to pay taxes on that money here instead of there. Anyway, I know we will never agree on this issue, so I extend my arm out to shake your hand and will see you on the trails.

Thanks, Montana. It's OK to disagree. We all look at these complex issues from different perspectives, depending on our own situations. I wish you all the best.

And I wish you all the best as well. Happy trails ;-)

0 Replies

Bush's plan to turn America into an ownership society

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know