* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:02:14 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >* Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > >>But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't > >>hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't exist when in fact a super > >>majority of the people in this country are of the opinion that it > >>better damned well exist. > > > >Are you really saying that most Americans are delusional and of the > >opinion that wishing makes it so? > > I'm saying that Americans believe that SS is a promise and that they > intend to insure that the government will honor it.
Okay, but that is not what you wrote above. The money is NOT in a vault, and it does NOT "damned well exist". It is merely figures on paper (or in a computer). All it means is that until those figures reach zero, the SS trustees don't need any new laws passed by Congress in order to pay SS benefits. The money will still need to come from the Treasury to pay it, and the Treasury will get the money as usual (taxes and borrowing). You've seen the poll > numbers, right? > By the way, I didn't say that I necessarily felt that way; I'm just making > an observation. I'm on record for supporting reform including: > > 1. Gradually raising the retirement age This only works if there a sufficient jobs for 68 year olds. I'm not convinced there will be. > 2. Slowing the rate of increase of the benefit That is the best solution. > 3. Capping the benefit That is also a good idea, as long as it doesn't include some sort of means-testing (which would penalize people for saving on their own). > 4. Dropping the limit on the amount of the benefit that would be taxed > 5. Eliminating the (90k) limit on income taxed We REALLY have to stop raising the payroll tax, even if it does feel good to stick it to the rich. We can't keep paying more and more to SS, as we have been doing for the past 70 years. It has got to stop, and now is the time to stop it. The only reasonable way to make that change would be if it were revenue-neutral -- so you could tax all income with no limit, but the overall SS tax rate would decrease so that the tax revenue to SS is the same. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
