[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So since we both prefer SS the way it is rather than the unwise individual
> account approach (which is a disaster for women who raise children), let's
> not pound away at the $80,400 wage base. If you ask for a bigger hosing,
> we'll end up getting individual accounts.
Hi Bob,
No, I wasn't saying the amount of wages taxed for Social Security should be
higher. Not at all. The $80,400 for this year seems like too much already, so
people paying the maximum will never receive that in payments when they retire,
which I think is what you were alluding to in your first paragraph (but, as you
say, it goes toward taking care of our parents now, which I believe is a very
good thing).
My comment about the wage base was to point out that Social Security is a
program that the lower and middle classes pay for and also benefit greatly by,
and one that wealthy people will not be interested in because they'll never rely
on it and they pay a relatively small amount into it (directly anyway; the fact
that the government may apply generally collected taxes toward SS is another
issue). As I understand it, a millionaire's checks at retirement would be the
same amount as those of someone who has earned $80,400 (assuming it's every year
of her or his worklife), since only the wages up to that amount (or up to
whatever the base is for a particular year) are taxed. Presumably, the
relatively small monthly SS check at retirement will not mean much to someone
with millions of dollars in the bank, but could be the main financial support
for many (most?) Americans.
Since, as it's structured now, it's a program that doesn't effect Dubya's
wealthy pals much, I worry that he'll encourage changes mostly so the program
can benefit his pals (in this case the banking industry) and that he'll be able
to do that without much serious opposition since lower wage earners do not have
much political clout. Add to that his willingness to say how much it will
benefit the American people whether it actually does or not, and.... well,
obviously I don't trust the guy's motives at all.
I realize there will be many other people involved in making any kind of change
in the Social Security program, but so far he's been very good at getting what
he wants. That may change after the 2002 congressional elections.
Your explanation of Social Security is very interesting, Bob, and you clearly
know much more about it than I ever will, so thanks for sharing all that. I
especially like the information about the benefit to families. I didn't realize
that. It's obviously a complex program and the idea of it being turned into a
money-making venture for the wealthy bankers to the detriment of hard-working
wage earners sickens me. I doubt you'd say it that way, but other than my use of
the word sickens, it seems to me we're agreeing on the basic issues regarding
SS.
Debra Shea
