A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you wanted to fix the system, you'd strike a bipartisan deal to increase the payroll tax some, increase the cap on income subject to the tax some, and curb future benefits some. You'd get enough votes from both parties to give everyone cover. To get there, you'd have to go with incremental change, and compromise.

Needless to say, that's not what this White House is interested in.

I think that if reform is going to happen, you are going to see something along these lines. Some in the adminstration have already been testing the argument that a rise in the cap is not really an increased tax, which is of course, horseshit, but may be necessary.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
. Some in the adminstration have already been testing the argument that a rise in the cap is not really an increased tax, which is of course, horseshit, but may be necessary.

Does a rise in the cap alone solve the problem? I thought benefits were tied to how much you put in, up to the capped level. So if you raise the cap, don't you raise the liabilities as well? Or is there not a 1:1 ratio--i.e., stick it to the rich some more?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please explain.

I'm not sure if anyone has proposed this, but it seems like the math should work - even though math is hard.

X% of your SS tax goes into a private account, 100%-X% goes into the current system. When you hit the retirement age, you're benefits from the current system are reduced by the amount that your X% would have earned in the system (or even a greater percentage), but did not because it's in the private account. Assuming the private account appeciates at a higher rate than it would have under the current system, you get the benefit of the difference or the benefit of a part of the difference.

Not sure what the transition costs would be.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does a rise in the cap alone solve the problem? I thought benefits were tied to how much you put in, up to the capped level. So if you raise the cap, don't you raise the liabilities as well? Or is there not a 1:1 ratio--i.e., stick it to the rich some more?

No, I think you also need to increase the retirement age and cut benefits to have a shot. I'm not sure on the ration, but I was under the impression that it was not 1:1.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not the support, its thinking that the solution to every problem is more funding . .

I simply think that income and expense should at some point match, and that social security should represent an entitlement program that pays enough to recipients to be a basic safety net.

And Bush is challenging virtually every word in the above sentance.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And this, my commie friend

Impressive rhetoric, coming from someone who wants the government to borrow 2 or 3 or 4 trillion dollars.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I simply think that income and expense should at some point match, and that social security should represent an entitlement program that pays enough to recipients to be a basic safety net.

And Bush is challenging virtually every word in the above sentance.

I think that Bush agrees with you that the SS safety net is morally required and should pay enough to accomplish that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub


Not sure what the transition costs would be.

X times the number of people participating times teh amount at issue. That's basically what bush is proposing, but the problem is that all current benefits are being funded by current taxes, with some taxes going into the trust fund. If you put those extra funds into "private" accounts you're depleting the trust fund even faster. The cost of reducing liabilities in the future is decrease revenue presently.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Impressive rhetoric, coming from someone who wants the government to borrow 2 or 3 or 4 trillion dollars.

That's not what I want at all. What I want is a greater return on my money than I'm currently getting.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
eta:

The paragraphs immediately before the ones you quoted make this even more clear:

• A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.
  
  That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.
  
  "Oh, my God," one GOP political strategist said when he learned of the shift in rhetoric. "The White House has made a lot of Republicans walk the plank on this. Now it sounds as if they are sawing off the board."

LA Times, via Drum

Fucking liberal media hatchet job.

First they quote a Bush aide, then a GOP strategist. Might as well get your news from Michael Moore.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not sure if anyone has proposed this, but it seems like the math should work - even though math is hard.

X% of your SS tax goes into a private account, 100%-X% goes into the current system. When you hit the retirement age, you're benefits from the current system are reduced by the amount that your X% would have earned in the system (or even a greater percentage), but did not because it's in the private account. Assuming the private account appeciates at a higher rate than it would have under the current system, you get the benefit of the difference or the benefit of a part of the difference.

Not sure what the transition costs would be.

Let's just set aside the various issues relating to the performance of private accounts vs. the current system, and the desirability or lack thereof of the insurance function that we now have, and focus on transition costs. Money that comes in now is not invested. It's used to pay for current retirees. So doing what you propose will entail borrowing a big chunk of money. If this improves the system's finances as of 2052, this happens only at the cost of hurting our finances now. If you think the shortfall that we face in 50 years is a "crisis," it makes absolutely no sense to talk about borrow money to shift to private accounts. The conversation should be, instead, about tweaking the system in the ways discussed in other posts.

Your proposal is like my wife saying to me, we should buy a Mercedes, but I'm not sure about the costs. Well, sure. If money were no object, why not?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think that Bush agrees with you that the SS safety net is morally required and should pay enough to accomplish that.

I don't think he does. Or at least, based on his policy agenda I have no reason to believe he does.

Private accounts, managed privately, are not a safety net. Indeed, until he also proposes a low-cost annuity that may be purchased by anyone with a private account when they reach retirement, it will certainly not be a safety net, because it makes no provision for the fact that some people will live longer than others

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does a rise in the cap alone solve the problem? I thought benefits were tied to how much you put in, up to the capped level. So if you raise the cap, don't you raise the liabilities as well? Or is there not a 1:1 ratio--i.e., stick it to the rich some more?

Maybe "related," but not "tied." The more you make, the worse you do with Social Security. So, yes, there's income redistribution going on. This, of course, is why the hard-core GOPers hate it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
X times the number of people participating times teh amount at issue. That's basically what bush is proposing, but the problem is that all current benefits are being funded by current taxes, with some taxes going into the trust fund. If you put those extra funds into "private" accounts you're depleting the trust fund even faster. The cost of reducing liabilities in the future is decrease revenue presently.

I thought the article linked below, which is really from the WSJ but was reprinted by something else which is helpful because I don't subscribe to WSJ online, was interesting, particularly the stuff about the level of the tax in other countries and the way that Bush has to some extent, at some times, been trying to fold the private account thing into an overall tax-preferred savings agenda. He has had a bunch of proposals for different accounts, or for multi-purpose accounts, that would allow pre-retirement withdrawals for stuff like buying houses and stuff -- the Singapore example speaks to that.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...909EST0050.DTL

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think that if reform is going to happen, you are going to see something along these lines. Some in the adminstration have already been testing the argument that a rise in the cap is not really an increased tax, which is of course, horseshit, but may be necessary.

But they aren't commies? What's the distinction?