Ahhh....Social Security

[TheAnvil 0]

Check this out.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kai2k1 0]

Check this out. It will calculate how much you will have saved and made just off the 4% President Bush Is proposing.


http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/social_security/

There's no truer sense of flying than sky diving," Scott Cowan

[Gravitymaster 0]

Greenspan Backs Private Soc. Sec. Accounts

Thu Feb 17, 3:23 AM ET Business - AP


By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan favors private investment accounts within Social Security — a cornerstone of President Bush's proposed overhaul of the retirement program — but the Fed chief is concerned about the costs of a transition and the impact on financial markets.

"All in all, I'm glad that if we're going to move in that direction, we're going to move slowly and test the waters, because I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run," Greenspan told the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday.


Bush, meanwhile, is leaving open the possibility of raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.


"The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate. And all the other issues go on the table," Bush told a roundtable of regional newspapers, according to an account in the New Haven (Conn.) Register.


The president's proposal would allow workers under age 55 to divert a chunk of their Social Security taxes into voluntary, private stock and bond investment accounts. The administration has estimated that transition costs for the next 10 years would be $754 billion.


Critics contend the true costs would be in the trillions of dollars.


Greenspan's worry is whether the government's increased borrowing needs would boost a variety of interest rates_ from mortgage rates for consumers and borrowing costs for businesses. "How markets interpret it is really, in a sense, the important issue," Greenspan said.


The politically touchy issue of revamping Social Security dominated the Senate hearing, where the Fed chief was peppered with questions. Democrats contend Social Security's problems aren't as bad as Bush says. They generally oppose the use of payroll taxes for private investment accounts as well as large benefit cuts. Republican lawmakers also have been wary of embracing Bush's ideas.


Greenspan appeared before the Senate panel to deliver the Fed's twice-a-year economic outlook to Congress. He was to appear Thursday to present the outlook to the House Financial Services Committee, where the Social Security issue was expected to figure prominently.


In his Senate appearance, Greenspan repeated his call for Congress to shore up Social Security. The program faces huge financial strains with the looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers in 2008. As in the past, he didn't rule out the possibility of benefit cuts or tax increases to help close the massive funding gap the retirement program will face.


Asked whether the president's proposal is risky, Greenspan responded: "Senator, it is risky. Doing nothing is risky. Doing any other solution to this is risky. We've got this huge hole in our long-term funding problem, and I know of no way to resolve it without some risk."


On the economic front, Greenspan told the Senate panel that the economic expansion rolled into the new year at a respectable pace and that inflation — while not an immediate threat — is something policy-makers must continue to guard against.


"All told, the economy seems to have entered 2005 expanding at a reasonably good pace, with inflation and inflation expectations well-anchored," Greenspan said.


Economists viewed Greenspan's remarks as buttressing their view the Fed for now will stick to its gradual approach to raising rates.


Federal Reserve policy-makers embarked on a rate-raising campaign last June and have pushed up short-term interest rates six times, each in modest, quarter-point moves. The last rate increase on Feb. 2 left a key rate at 2.50 percent. Another rate boost is expected at the Fed's next meeting on March 22.


Before the Fed started to push up rates in June, its key rate was at a 46-year low of 1 percent.


That extraordinarily low rate was used to shore up the economy, which struggled to recover from the recession of 2001 and the Sept. 11 attacks. With the economic expansion more deeply rooted, the Fed needs to move the funds rate to a more normal level so all the cheap money does not lay the groundwork for inflation.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Bush, meanwhile, is leaving open the possibility of raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.

I agree with this.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Bush, meanwhile, is leaving open the possibility of raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.

I agree with this.

I don't. Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate just because I earn more? I'd be willing to walk away right now and give up all the money I've paid into SS to date if I could opt out permanently.

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Quote

Bush, meanwhile, is leaving open the possibility of raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.

I agree with this.

I don't because the $90k+ crowd are also going to be denied their benefits due to means testing when their turn comes around. Now the disability program is widely abused, yet we hear very little about fixing that problem.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Bush, meanwhile, is leaving open the possibility of raising taxes on those who earn more than $90,000 a year to help bolster Social Security's finances. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,000 in wages.

I agree with this.

I don't because the $90k+ crowd are also going to be denied their benefits due to means testing when their turn comes around. Now the disability program is widely abused, yet we hear very little about fixing that problem.

I agree. The day will come when SS will only be paid to those who can prove they need it. Higher income people will be denied any benefit. This is just another pathetic example of the redistribution of wealth that has been going on in this country since Roosevelt. Perhaps a better usage for SS would be for the govt to require a few basic classes on financial planning and investment strategies.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I don't. Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate just because I earn more? I'd be willing to walk away right now and give up all the money I've paid into SS to date if I could opt out permanently.

Using your logic we should tax Welfare families more since they use more services.

It does not work that way.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[penniless 0]

It only calculates the direct benefit. It omits the part about paying the couple of $Triilions needed to make the conversion. I suppose someone else (like the Iraqis) pays that for us.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't. Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate just because I earn more? I'd be willing to walk away right now and give up all the money I've paid into SS to date if I could opt out permanently.

Using your logic we should tax Welfare families more since they use more services.

It does not work that way.

I already pay more in dollars because I make a higher income. Why should I have to pay a higher rate on top of that. Next, you'll be telling me there's a "Lockbox". I will most likely never recieve SS anyway, because I believe there will be a means test when that time comes. The time has come to slay the beast.

[rmsmith 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't. Why should I have to pay a higher tax rate just because I earn more? I'd be willing to walk away right now and give up all the money I've paid into SS to date if I could opt out permanently.

Using your logic we should tax Welfare families more since they use more services.

Social Security was originally established like a whole-life insurance plan, and now our elected leaders want to change it into a term life plan based on a means test. As globalism spreads the standard of living will increase elsewhere and decline here proportionately, and the folks who subscribe to a socially dependent lifestyle will have to adjust accordingly just like everyone else.

[Ron 10]

Quote

and the folks who subscribe to a socially dependent lifestyle will have to adjust accordingly just like everyone else.

The liberals will never allow that to happen.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334