At 10:41 PM 1/18/2005 -0600 Dan Minette wrote: >This is opposed to the very real problem of the money going to investments >attacking the foundations of what Social Security is.
Why is that a problem? Or is the pyramid-scheme foundation and the regressive tax system of Social Security sacrosanct? >Such an income, with the present social security, would yield him 10660 per >year. This is significantly better. If he were married, and the sole >bread earner, then the income would be about 16000/year..more than twice as >much as the investment. There is almost no question that the current system benefits stay-at-home Moms, since stay-at-home Moms receive benefits upon retirement without ever paying for current benefits during their work-elgible years. (Note, I am arguing against my own interest here) >It should be clear to anyone that looks at the SS formula that it is >progressive...it benefits low income people relatively more than high >income folks. Bush's suggestion is simply a return on one's own >money....so that is removed. The purpose of SS was to provide a floor to >keep the elderly and disabled out of poverty. For the most part, it has >done this splendidly. I think that splendidly vastly overstates the case. If Social Security was intended to be a program to benefit the poor, there are a number of things that I would do much differently. >Thus, having a sliding scale between a top that is indexed to >inflation and a bottom that is indexed to wages makes sense. The sliding >scale could also be tied to inflation, not wages, so all of SS would >eventually be tied to just inflation. In the very long run, if wages >continue to rise, the SS tax would approach zero. In the very long run, we're all dead. ;-) Also, if one just makes Social Security a welfare program, you can just make the benefits higher at the bottom of the scale, and phase them out towards the top. >I find it interesting that this aspect of the program is not brought up. >My guess is that Democrats don't bring it up a criticism of Bush's plan >because it wouldn't have any traction with the middle and upper middle >class voters. I'm guessing focus groups indicate they wouldn't mind if the >poorer elderly got less....just as long as they didn't. I think that it has to do with the fact that Social Security brings out Democrats' inner-Socialists. The Democratic Party is and has been *opposed* to making Social Security a simple welfare program for the poor. That is why the Democrats have done things like *oppose* means-testing Social Security benefits, and have supported the massive increase in regressive taxation under Social Security. Let's face it, when you support taxing the poor in order to refuse denying benefits to the rich, it becomes hard to talk about how wonderfully progressive Social Security is with a straight face..... and that's why Democrats become hysterical once anyone proposes rolling Social Security into the general Federal Budget, as the change of Social Security from a "Socialist" to a "Social Democratic" program would undermine their Socialist dreams.. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
