Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social Security Proposal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social Security Proposal

    Under this proposal:

    **Individuals would be allowed to divert their half (6.2 percentage points) of the payroll tax to individually owned, privately invested accounts. Those who chose to do so would agree to forgo all future accrual of retirement benefits under the traditional Social Security system.

    **The remaining 6.2 percentage points of payroll taxes would be used to pay transition costs and to fund disability and survivors' benefits.

    **Workers who chose the individual account option would receive a "recognition bond" based on the accrued value of their lifetimeto- date benefits. Those bonds, redeemable at the worker's retirement, would be fully tradable in secondary markets.

    **Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.


    MORE


    Mr. G

  • #2
    Now you're talking.
    And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

    -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

    Comment


    • #3
      Allow people to be responsible for their own retirement? What's the catch?
      If you believe in something sacrifice a hobo to it or don't bother.

      Comment


      • #4
        Makes too much sense.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by backstop@Feb 22 2004, 11:03 PM
          Makes too much sense.
          Which is while it will never happen...
          If you believe in something sacrifice a hobo to it or don't bother.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Turd Ferguson@Feb 22 2004, 10:57 PM
            Allow people to be responsible for their own retirement? What's the catch?
            having to support the MILLIONS that would have NOTHING after losing all of their money playing the stock market like it's craps on the boat.
            Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yaks,

              You're right.

              Our betters in the Leviathan State should think for us.

              People are just too stupid to govern themselves or their own affairs.

              (Democat Platform - Plank #101)
              And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

              -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

              Comment


              • #8
                yaks--

                **Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  How much more would we all have to put in under this system?

                  1- If this system went into effect this year, who would continue to pay for the current retirees?
                  2- What about the millions who are to close to retirement to start this new program? We will have to also continue to pay for all of those people too.
                  3- We would have to pay our own amount so we could retire.

                  And thats just off the top of my head, I don't think any of here right now would ever see this new system in place because we will have to create a cut off point for the current system and THEN move to the new one, we will have to keep paying under the current plan for decades to come.
                  Otherwise who will pay for everyone who is 40 and over who could not start this new program? Heck maybe even 30 and over, those people would have 10 or 20 years of NOT paying into their own private accounts to make up for.

                  It is NOT as easy as just keep the money you pay in and invest it.
                  Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    because giving Bush buddies like Ken Lay the keys to the kingdom is a good idea.

                    Maybe if the administration takes enforcing SEC regulations seriously, I'll say go for it.
                    Are you on the list?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by backstop@Feb 22 2004, 11:15 PM
                      yaks--

                      **Those who wished to remain in the traditional Social Security system would be free to do so, accepting a level of benefits payable with the current level of revenue.
                      The system is already in trouble, if Millions of people "drop out" to pay for themselves the system could NEVER support those who stay in.
                      Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The fine print that says Halliburton gets to invest your money scares me.
                        Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The "system" is already broke.

                          Buying out current retirees is an act of political will.
                          And, frankly, it has never occured to me that "winning" a debate is important, or that I should be hurt when someone like Airshark or kah, among others (for whom winning a pseudo debate or declaring intellectual superiority over invisible others is obviously very important) ridicule me.

                          -The Artist formerly known as King in KC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SLUBLUE@Feb 22 2004, 11:22 PM
                            Maybe if the administration takes enforcing SEC regulations seriously, I'll say go for it.
                            You can't lay the blame entirely on this administration.

                            The Enron stuff you're referring to (I think) has gone on under plenty of administrations, Republican and Democrat. It didn't start in January 2001.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Damtoft@Feb 22 2004, 11:25 PM
                              The "system" is already broke.

                              Buying out current retirees is an act of political will.
                              Or use the same political will to admit we have to simply raise the amount people must put into the system to keep it alive.

                              The simple fact is there used to be more people working than retired, now people live much longer and the baby boomer's are going to ensure we have more retirees to support, we simply must pay more into the system.

                              If you make a new system where people invest their own money, what will be the program to support those who lose everything.
                              And you know there will have to be one.

                              What will happen when another ENRON wipes out the retirement funds of 10's of millions?
                              Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X