President Bush wants to amend the Social Security Act because he claims it is in a crisis and will be bankrupt in half a century. However, his policy towards global warming is to ignore it. It may go away. The (U.K.) Independent states that before Social Security becomes bankrupt, loss of Arctic ice will threaten polar bears and walruses, the Rockies could become too warm for trout and salmon, risk of hunger will increase, and 1.5 billion people will face water shortages, among other sequelae. After 2070, catastrophic effects will be felt worldwide.
Coincidentally, also in today’s newspaper is a news article stating that the EPA “ignored scientific evidence and agency protocols to set limits on mercury pollution that would line up with the Bush administration’s free-market approaches to power plant pollution… Staff at the EPA were instructed to set modest limits on mercury pollution and then had to work backward from the predetermined goal to justify the proposal.”
So, we may not have to worry about reaching retirement in 50 years; there may be noone around to enjoy retirement.
I voted for Bush but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of his policies. Watching Kerry on Meet the Press last Sunday reaffirms that I made the right decision. But let’s not go there. I’m sure that has been hashed over and rehashed over many times on this MB.
What do Bush’s environmental stands have to do with the fiscal solvency of Social Security? Personally, I think the Republicans have their head in environmental sand/arse, and the Democrats on Social Security. Social Security is a pyramid scheme, it works as long as there are many more ponying up bucks than accruing bucks. Why not go back to the original concept, and only give Social Security to the indigent elderly?
My point was that Bush has called SS a crisis but his policies are leading to a bigger crisis. The SS we have now is the original concept. FDR envisioned a system similar to what Bush advocates, but the time then was not ripe.
I think that’s pretty much a non-starter position. There’s NO shortage of worthy causes to go after. If Bush were the perfect president, and there were FOUR of him, there’d still be things he wasn’t doing for the Greater Good.
The older I get, the more fatalistic I think people sound. Cause X needs to be champoined or terrible thing Y will happen! (Think of the CHILDREN!<sob>)
Meanwhile, the sun keeps rising and setting. And the themal cycles we’re experiencing aren’t anywhere NEAR the extremes the planet has seen in the past. In the meantime, there are stil three or four major population centers around the world creeping up into their ‘Industrial Revolution’ phase. They’re not going to stop because we ‘ask nicely’.
At the same time, the vanguard of environmental concern: the Repubik of Kalifornia continues to choke out older cars - a statistical anomaly in the environment - while turning a blind eye to the industrial pollution generated that’s a MUCH higher percentage of the problem.
Both President Clinton and VP Gore acknowledged a funding problem with Social Security. It didn’t happen yesterday and it’s not going away. The demographic trend the United States is a change in ratio between tax payer and retiree. The more it changes the higher the tax burden.
If you don’t mind paying higher taxes to fund my retirement that’s your prerogative but I like Al Gore’s concept of a lock box. Or as I like to call it, my bank account. Give me some of MY money back and I’ll invest it. I will have loads more money at retirement. When I die I can transfer that money to relatives who in turn will need less money for retirement.
It’s a win/win concept that can be done with very little regulations. All it would take is a raise in the limits of Roth IRA’s (which was just raised to $4,000 year) and a tax deduction equivalent to a percentage of FICA taxes. You then take a reduction on your social security pay-out (depending on your retirement age) based on the money you received back for purposes of investment.
Investment limitations would be similar to those of 401K’s to avoid losses in the market.
Sounds like a wonderful idea and I’m sure that you would put the money away and not touch it. However, we all know that there are quite a few people that would not wisely invest their money and some others that would just spend now and say to hell with tomorrow. Then when those two groups reach retirement they will start yelling about the unfairness of a system that didn’t insure that they could live a good life in their later years. There will also be those that agree and will come up with a reason that we should all contribute to the cause.
Sorry but if there is a program, it has to be one where those folks can’t use the money and then hold out their hands. That probably is one of the few things that our present system does right.
Cite what? Under social security you are entitled to exactly ZERO dollars upon retirement. If you live for 1 week past that date you will get a taxpayer funded stippen that might, if you’re frugal, pay for the barest of needs. It’s not meant to retire on. The current tax rate you’re charged is dependent on the ratio of tax payers to retirees. As the ratio of taxpayers to retirees gets lower there is less money to pay for the stipened. Either the stipened gets lower, taxes go up, or the age requirement goes up.
I’m not trying to bust your balls on this but it’s real money leaving your pocket and you will never get the ** USE** of that money again. I’m paying something like 8% in FICA and FICA Medicare. If I was taxed 2% less and invested that over 45 years I would start my retirement with at least $70,000 in cash (after the 2% is deducted back out of what was earned). That’s based on a conservative 5% rate of return.
I think what he is asking for is something like this. It is a Congressional Budget Office study of one of the plans of the social security commission that includes the individual accounts accounts that Bush wants and it shows:
(1) That the individual accounts do next-to-nothing to help social security’s solvency in the long-run. It does become solvent in the long run under this plan but that is because the plan cuts future benefits by indexing them to prices instead of to wages. [Tables 1A and 1B.]
(2) That under this new plan with private accounts, the best estimate is that nearly everyone born before 2010 (which is as late as they study) would get more lifetime benefits under the original S.S. plan than under this new plan. Note that this includes the money people get from the individual accounts and it remains true even if one assumes that the original S.S. only pays out as much money as comes in each year once the trust fund is exhausted in ~2052, i.e., that there are benefit cuts at that point. [Table 4.]