Author Topic: Back to SS for a sec (Read 365 times)

oboe · « **on:** April 30, 2005, 07:15:14 AM »

I was surprised that Bush proposed means testing for Social Security, but I'm not against it. I think my suggestions for strengthening the program were: remove the $90,000 cap, raise retirement age, and implement means testing. I would frame the current IRAs and 401Ks as 'private accounts' that we already have in place.

From Bushes speech:

Quote

If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty.

What do you think about Bush saying that?

Shane · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2005, 08:23:01 AM »

bush's comment is perfectly valid when you translate it as,

"If you're lucky to be born into wealth, invest wisely, and make sure pay your employer share of Social Security taxes after minizing income through every loophole availabe to corporations, you will not retire into poverty."

lazs2 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2005, 08:42:26 AM »

In what context? Did he say that right now SS is enough to retire above the poverty line?

Even if your home is paid for... there are still taxes and..

The EPA is gonna nail us all with about 300 bucks extra useless charges a month within the next ten years.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2005, 09:58:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
In what context? The EPA is gonna nail us all with about 300 bucks extra useless charges a month within the next ten years.

lazs

Laz,

Your source and context for the abve statement? What are you talking about and it's relevence to the subject?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2005, 10:05:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane
bush's comment is perfectly valid when you translate it as,

"If you're lucky to be born into wealth, invest wisely, and make sure pay your employer share of Social Security taxes after minizing income through every loophole availabe to corporations, you will not retire into poverty."

Minimizing income through income tax loopholes has nothing to do with the amount the employer pays, although I suppose that minimizing payroll does.

The "employer share" is paid when the employee gets paid. It is part of the payroll expense.

Toad · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2005, 10:42:21 AM »

The socialists should be happy that means testing is on the table. It's just another transfer of wealth.

I mean, just because you pay into the system at the same percentage rates as everyone else, why should you expect equal benefits.

Equal benefits are just unfair.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2005, 10:46:13 AM »

On a real dollar basis you are correct Toad, but on an income percentage basis, the payments are not equal as money over 90K is not taxed.

Kind of intresting that the most social program we have hits the smaller guy harder than the rich guy.

Toad · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2005, 10:48:52 AM »

Ok, just for you Holden.

I mean, just because you pay into the system at the same percentage rates as everyone else up to $90,000 of income, why should you expect equal benefits from that taxation?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2005, 10:55:10 AM »

I'm not arguing against your position. I just find it interesting that SS, brought to us by the Democratic Icon (FDR), was not designed in the first place with 'progressive' taxation and 'regressive'* benefits.

*means tested

lazs2 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2005, 12:09:12 PM »

mav.. I am asking in what context Bush said we would not be living at poverty level...

If you have to live on say $1500 a month... you might make it if you have your house paid for and don't drive much... but... you would still have to pay for your homes taxes and utilities.

If your utilituies like water and sewer went up $300 a month then you would have a much more difficult time... they will go up that much because of EPA junk science regulations.

lazs

oboe · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2005, 01:05:19 PM »

I thought it was an interesting statement for someone to make who hasn't really shown any support in an effort to keep working people out of poverty (ie minimum wage, loss of overtime pay, giving companies tax breaks on moving jobs offshore, etc). But now he want's to make sure when they reach retirement, they shouldn't be in poverty??

I think it was an insincere political statement designed to make people who disagree with his plan look bad. That said I still give him credit for at least talking about means testing.

Maverick · « **Reply #11 on:** April 30, 2005, 06:39:11 PM »

Laz,

I can understand the first part of what you just posted. I don't see where the EPA thing comes in unless you are merely inserting personal speculation into it. BTW I am NOT a fan of the EPA. I am curious as to the justification of what you posted is all.

lazs2 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2005, 09:52:56 AM »

mav... not sure I follow..

If your utility bills go up 300-500% then you would indeed have a problem keeping up after retirement. I am telling you that your utilitty bills will indeed do so within the next decade.. Some californians are allready paying $150 a month sewer fees with $300 a month not that far off. Water and storm will go the same route unless someone stops the EPA monster.

The epa people I have to deal with (water, wastewater and air) all feel that additional fees of 50-150 bucks a month for say sewer is not too harsh... after all, people should pay as much for clean water as they do for cable tv right? well.... yeah.... if that was going toward making the water cleaner instead of not doing anything except using up more resources (electricity and chemicals).

lazs