----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Social Security Facts:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:32:15 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > I'll agree with Erik that the % of GDP going as payments to the > > > elderly should not increase. So, I'd go with a similar reduction in > > > the increase in benefits that was agreed to in '83, with no overall > > > increase in the projected taxes collected (although the tax could > > > be more progressive). I think that would definately get us within > > > the ball park of long term sustainability by 2050. If this were > > > accomplished by changing the indexing formula, as I have suggested, > > > after sustainability was achieved, we would then see SS as a % of GDP > > > slowly decrease after 2050....assuming roughly historical ecconomic > > > growth. > > > > Nice summary, Dan. The plan you outline would be a huge improvement over > > what we have now. I'd definitely support something like it. I hope the > > shrill in the AARP and liberal media don't manage to scotch something > > like that if it is on the table. > > Replacing the payment increase being tied to the increase in cost of > living instead of wages may be a deal-breaker for Democrats. All we > can go on is past experience No, we can go on what _will_ happen under the plan. My suggestion caps the SS benefit for a single person at 25k/year. For a couple, the cap would range between 38k/year and 50k/year depending on whether both partners work. > benefits would be cut by more than half > now if this had been implemented in the past. It would have guaranteed > current retirees a benefit that would be a fraction of what they > needed to live on - in the 1930s. It is also contrary to philosophy > underlying SS, the benefits you receive are a function of your wages > and are closely tied to your wages. OK, but 25k/year for a single person and 38k/year for two people is not near poverty levels. > The Democrats are in no mood for any compromises, the Bush fix is > worse than doing nothing and much more expensive. The latter is true iff the money is poorly invested. If it is well invested, the cost should be a long range wash. >Bush's efforts of selling the plan have only increased public opposition as more details > leak out. Instead of benefits declining by roughly 25% in forty years > after the surplus is exhausted and Social Security becomes > pay-as-you-go benefits - under a Bush plan would decline by over 50% > even including the invested fund benefit. But, I'm not arguing for Bush's plan, I'm arguing for a progressive means of smoothly approaching that figure. Progressive in that the increases in SS benefits for lower income workers are not affected until the lower income workers of the future make 80k/year to 90k/year in 2005 dollars. If we don't cut the rise in benefits, we'll have to keep on increasing the % of GDP that goes to SS. We've done a pretty good job reducing poverty in the elderly. We've done a terrible job with children. Why not slow the increase in the payments to the elderly, so we can adress other needs? Would you suggest that the benefits should keep on increasing on the present schedule, even though it means that the maximum payment to a couple would be 90k/year in 2005 dollars by 2045? If so, why? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
