Who's worried about Social Security?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps it could be better, or well, I mean it should be better, but ...

Can you imagine the United States without Social Security?

[Johnny G]

The Congress is on the same program as other federal employees, and pays the same into and gets the  same out of that system;  

Many federal employees work for less than private employers would pay due to the much more secure retirement benefit  (see Delta, Eastern GM, etc.).  


Many who depended on a retirement specified as part of their employment are finding that carpet pulled out from under them at a rather inopportune time.  They were certainly not "lazy" or "dumb." They all had contracts and benefits garanteed by solid companies.  

These folks vote and vote hard so they will not be ignored; Pat Moynihan said many years ago - Do what you want with Social Security now, no one in their right mind will cut benefits later, or they won't be there for long.

THe "Fair Tax" as espoused by Boortz and others, while a good idea, ignores the secondary purpose of the tax code - to influence behavior.  We get a mortgage interest deduction to encourage us to buy houses and benefit the banking and building industries.   We don't want to lose our "deduction" so we are opposed to anything which would take that away from us.  In this way we are all "special interests" lobbying for our own benefit.  In the aggregate we are all protecting our piece of the pie - we all agree that the Fair tax would take away our peanut.

My $0.02

G

[GregFL]

I think you got the jest of it.  A "fair" system is unworkable in the US.  Therefore, Rallying for "fairness" while voting money out of other's pockets is just bullshit.

Say what you want, and explain why someone else should pay for it.  but don't be a sissy about it and hide behind "fairness".

[Anonymous]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471771724

Editorial Reviews
From Booklist
Altman, a pension-rights advocate, traces the history of Social Security from its introduction in 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt offered it as a safety net to protect not only the elderly but also children and disabled people. We learn that Roosevelt faced stiff opposition to his innovative concept, and ever since it has attracted controversy. The author claims that President George W. Bush has broken ranks with every president since Roosevelt, Republican and Democrat, in his current, high-profile effort to undo the program. She is highly critical of the Bush strategy, which she chronicles in detail. The author also offers a three-prong solution to Social Security's long-term projected shortfall--conversion of the residual estate tax to a dedicated Social Security tax, restoration of the maximum taxable wage base to 90 percent, and diversification in the trust fund portfolio to include stocks and bonds. This is a thoughtful, well-researched case against President Bush's efforts to reduce Social Security protection. Mary Whaley
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

Review
"[A] fine history ? the best single explanation for Bush's [defeat] ?Altman tells the story wonderfully?moves briskly?interesting story line."
?Robert G. Kaiser (The Washington Post)


The History and Future of Social Security, November 10, 2005
Reviewer:  Charles B. Craver    
In The Battle For Social Security, Nancy Altman provides readers with a detailed and interesting history of the Social Security System from the beginning in the mid-1930s to the present. She brings to life the different participants, and explores the legally and philosophically controversial nature of the Social Security pension and Medicare programs. She also describes the recent efforts to change the system through privatization and recommends modest changes in the current system that will make it actuarilly sound for generations to come. A must read for anyone interested in the future of Social Security.

Reviewer: John Shutkin (New York, NY)  
While Bush's Social Security "reform" now appears to be DOA, this is still a most important book. It is a comprehensive, well-reasoned and non-ideological analysis of a proposal that is itself non-comprehensive, poorly-reasoned and ideological. Through this approach, the book cogently exposes the Emperor as having no clothes (or at least very different ones from the "reform" ones that the Bush Administration has claimed to be wearing) and, even beyond Social Security, offers troubling insights into the manner in which this Administration operates on many fronts. But, again, it is not in any way a political screed, but a thoughtful and careful academic analysis, which makes it that much more credible and important. In addition, it does not only criticize the Bush plan (easy enough to do), but offers its own, well-reasoned approach to avoiding a Social Security deficit in coming years. And, despite both the gravity of the topic and the inherent complexity of the issues surrounding it (legal, economic and political), it is an immensely readable book. I believe this will be THE definitive book on the Bush Administration's Social Security plan -- and why it deserved to fail.

Reviewer:Charles Wolf (Bethesda, MD)
This book is different from anything I have ever read on this subject (and I have read widely in the field). The Battle for Social Security is deeply researched, entertainingly written, and full of insight about the history and political values of the program. The author, who is very highly qualified, obviously believes in those values, but this book does not involve mindless cheering for Social Security, or knee-jerk Bush bashing. Instead, this work thoughtfully and powerfully details the program's creation and expansion, and explains all the very good (and quite traditional) reasons why it remains popular with most Americans. Chapter 16 has some excellent ideas about how to keep Social Security solvent for many years without going down the destructive road of private accounts. If you want a pleasant path to a profound understanding of Social Security, this book is for you.


Not Worth the Read (or the Money), December 11, 2005

This is really an unfortunate book. It reminds one of those "town hall" events that the White House orchestrated for the foolish "60 stops in 60 days" tour during which President Bush tried to sell his Social Security reform plan to the American public. Like those events, this book is shallow and polemical. Altman divides the history of Social Security policy makers into the good (those who would never think to question or challenge any aspect of the program) and the bad (those who either oppose the program or so much as question any aspect of it). She devotes not a single chapter -- no, not even so much as a page or a sentence -- to a cricital examination of her own preconceptions or to any attempt to understand in a thoughtful manner the positions of those who have critically examined various aspects of the program over the years. This book is a catechism for Altman and the like-minded; there is no serious analysis anywhere within these pages.

For many of us who do not favor individual accounts but who worry about the long-term solvency of the program, this book really is a disappointment; I recommend Diamond and Orszag's Saving Social Security instead. For those interested in a detached, scholarly account of Social Security's early years, I recommend Achenbaum's Social Security: Visions and Revisions. For those who just want a thoughtful analysis of the issues at play in the current policy debate over Social Security, perhaps the best of all is Daniel Shaviro's Making Sense of Social Security Reform. Anything but Altman's book.



5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Social Security for Christmas!, November 27, 2005
Reviewer:   E. Nally - See all my reviews
The Battle For Social Security is both a significant history book and a critically important discussion of one of the most important issues facing our country today. As a baby boomer, I have had numerous discussions with friends who are fearful of what they will live on during retirement. (Often the fear is whether or not they will actually be able to retire.) Though we've all been forewarned to save for our retirement, for many, Social Security will be the primary source of income. This is particularly true in light of the current crisis in private pensions. The Battle For Social Security clearly explains the importance of Social Security and why it must not be changed by a move to private accounts. (If people want private accounts, they already have the option of IRA's and 401(k)'s.) Social Security affects virtually every American, and I want everyone I know to read The Battle For Social Security. That's why it's my gift to family and friends this Christmas!


Finally, The truth about the so-called Social Security "crisis", November 9, 2005
Reviewer:Peter H. Christiansen    
In The Battle For Social Security, Nancy Altman demontrates that the "eventual Social Security shortfall" that the Bushies are yammering about is simply the result of the fact that we do not currently collect taxes from earners above an annually adjusted ceiling which is currently $90,000.00. This $90,000.00 cutoff is literally starving the Social Security system. If this arbitrary tax cut to those who earn more than $90,000.00 were eliminated, so would the projected Social Security actuarial shortfall. In other words the so-called "Social Security crisis" is all about preserving another tax cut for the wealthy.

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-21 09:27:00, Anonymous wrote: This $90,000.00 cutoff is literally starving the Social Security system. If this arbitrary tax cut to those who earn more than $90,000.00 were eliminated, so would the projected Social Security actuarial shortfall. In other words the so-called "Social Security crisis" is all about preserving another tax cut for the wealthy.
<

Anonymous, you cut and paste this, so I am going to treat it as if it is your position.

Tell me how, if benefits are calculated at a maximum income of $90,000, how eliminating the ceiling cap on taxes BUT keeping the maximum benefit calculated at $90,000 results in "eliminating a tax cut for the wealthy". Specifically, Explain how this is fair and not punative to a certain segment of the population. Explain specifically how this will rescue a system that is currently bankrupt with no money in the "Trust fund" with the amount of people and benefits rising annually with a lower percentage of people paying in.  Keep in mind that all social security payments come out of the general tax fund at a rate higher than out total defense bill.

Please keep a straight face while doing so....

[Johnny G]

The Social Security "trust fund" has been a life ring for the federal budget for quite a while, providing funding thru a social security tax.  that money was not needed for many years so it has been used for other purposes - as part of the general fund.  Now that we can see when those funds might be needed, we need to figure out how to pay it back.  A group of politicians in the not too distant past figured out that this would not be a problem for them (they are dead or retired).  Now the general fund hass to cover the shortfall

[GregFL]

Hey, look what was in the Tampa Tribune editorial section this morning!   The sound you hear is my brain slapping my skull as my  head is nodding in agreement thruout the whole article.


SOCIAL MAY BE, BUT SECURITY IT AIN'T NO MORE


Joseph Klock   5/23, 2006 Tampa Tribune Hernando Today



If you still believe in the tooth fairy, free lunch and your chances of winning the publishers' sweepstakes, you won't like this column.

Ditto if you still think the social security "Fund" is stashed away in something like the lockbox promised by Al Gore during the Neverland of his presidential campaign.

Few people remember that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced the program, it was called FICA, an acronym for the Federal Insuruance contributions Act.

As the name implied (and its designers intended), it was to be a system for mitigating the hardships of old age.

The Scheme was simple enough:  a lot of people paid "insuruance premiums" during their salad days, so that a few survivors could receive a guaranteed income, if and when they reached geezerdom.

In touting the program, FDR promised that participation would be completely voluntary, that workers would pay into it only 1 percent of the first $1400 in  earned each  year, that this premium would be tax deductible, that the benefits later received would never be taxable and that the money participants chipped in would be used EXCLUSIVELY to fund the future benefits.

Of all these facets in that very possible dream, only the acronym remains after decades of ruthless gutting by the duly elected reprehensibles of a trusting american populace.

In order to stay within our 750 word parameter, were obliged to fast-forward thr-out those many years of legislative rape and pillage, during which the extent of coverage, the cost and the eligiblity roster were explosievely expanded.  Mindlessly shoved aside in that irresponsible process was the bedrock notion of squirreling away enough money to make all the promised dreams come true.

Somewhere along the way, the pooh-bahs of both political parties cast their greedy eyes on the huge reserves being built up in the fund, characterized them as surpluses and "borrowed" them to finance their sailor-on-leave spending proclivities-and to slake the thirst of the special interests to which they owed their primary allegiance.

As a result, no money-that is to say, not a penny of cash or drop of liquied assets, actually goes into the "lockbox"  these days, nor has any gone there for many years.

The(non deductible) bucks we (manditorily) contribute are gathered in by the Treasury each year-well over half a trillion of them-there greenies, if you'd care to know-are are first used to pay current benefits.

What's left, maybe 140 billion or so, is thrown to and devoured by the legislative wolves in exchange for special bonds, which are simply IOUs, whether you'd care to know that or not.

Part of that pseudo-surplus - a bigger chunk each year- must be diverted to cover interest on the existing markers, of course.

These promissory notes, awarded by current Peters to future Pauls, are ALL that is held in "trust" for  those looking forward to a soft landing between productive labor and the bone yard.  That group of hopefuls, who will be handed the dirty end of the stick, includes many of our readers, most of their children, and all of their subsequent descendants.

Let's put it another way for those behind the rose-colored glasses.  NOTHING is being set aside in hard cash or other assests to meet the needs of that horde of baby boomers about to retire and their begats.  NOTHING!  NADA!  ZILCH!   BUBKES!

In just 12 years, we (actually they, for the most part) will have to start servicing those deferred debts, but not out of any surplus of receipts over disbursements.   That Ponzi-like political pinata will have been completely disemboweled.

The shortage-starting 12 years from now,mind ye-will have to be covered by either raising taxes, lowering benefits, restricting eligibility, or (most likely) all of the above.

In none of this is done, the whole program will be insolvent, according to the bean counters, by 2042, just a tad past the 100th birthday of DFR's brilliant dream.

Until then, fellow passengers, our seats on the deck of this Titanic are safe and our hearts may be untroubled, until we hit the iceberg of reality.

meanwhile, unless forced to face the music by an aroused and outraged electorate (that's you and me, folks), the clowns on crapital Hill will respond with no more constructive action than pointing fingers while giving the same to their constitituents.

And we'll re-enshrine almost all of them in their dis-gracefull Hill of Shame come Nov 7th.

[SHH]

Like I said...take away the cap of income placed on when SS taxes are taken out....so EVERY level of income pays into the system...and take away the cap of income received as well....so everybody pays in....everybody takes out a percentage....there is no reason why the wealthy should not be required to pay in if they can take out that same income percentage come retirement...more money would be in the system and it would be fair to ALL income levels. And while were at it lets reform the medical insurance system so people can actually pay into a 401k each month instead of having to shell out 300-600 dollars a month for medical insurance that sucks like I do.

[cleveland]

After all is said and done, I agree with you...

[Anonymous]

On 2006-05-23 08:44:00, SHH wrote:

"Like I said...take away the cap of income placed on when SS taxes are taken out....so EVERY level of income pays into the system...and take away the cap of income received as well....so everybody pays in....everybody takes out a percentage....there is no reason why the wealthy should not be required to pay in if they can take out that same income percentage come retirement...more money would be in the system and it would be fair to ALL income levels. And while were at it lets reform the medical insurance system so people can actually pay into a 401k each month instead of having to shell out 300-600 dollars a month for medical insurance that sucks like I do."

Did you read anything I wrote?  Explain please how taxing people on their income above 90,000 but figuring their benefits at 90,000 is "fair".  Use the dictionary use of the word fair please.

[Anonymous]

they do pay into it. up to that level, 90k. its not like if you make over 90k you dont have to pay.
and they can only withtdraw at the same rate they pay into it. raising the cap would put more money into the fund, but the percentage of people who clear 100k a year is very small and you arent adding a lot of money into SS by raising the cap. the problems SS has are far greater then the amount you've theorertically just added

[GregFL]

On 2006-05-23 15:14:00, Anonymous wrote:

"they do pay into it. up to that level, 90k. its not like if you make over 90k you dont have to pay.

and they can only withtdraw at the same rate they pay into it. raising the cap would put more money into the fund, but the percentage of people who clear 100k a year is very small and you arent adding a lot of money into SS by raising the cap. the problems SS has are far greater then the amount you've theorertically just added"

Right!

And you noticed, to get past the "fairness" issue, she now has added "collect at the higher rate", which actually would ADD more problems to the system than any conceived solution.  In effect, it would bankrupt the system at an accelerated rate over the current rate!

The whole "tax the wealthly for fairness" is nothing but trying to vote money out of the pockets of one segment of society and give it to another.  

If you tried  this in real life, they would call it stealing, and you would do time.

I mean, imagine if you couldn't make your monthly mortgage payments, so you just took the money from your more wealthy neighbor against his will.  After all, it is only "fair" that he help his neighbors, isn't it?

[SHH]

Greg youre missing my point entirely. If I am making 35,000 a year, and I get taxed on my entire income, why doesnt John Doe down the street get taxed on his ENTIRE 150,000 a year salary? Assuming they changed it and didnt have a cap on the amount you receive when you retire, why does he get a break, when I dont? When I pay my county tax bill of 1,300 at the end of the year, it hurts me far more in my pocketbook than it would him. When I pay 500 a month for health insurance, and he pays the same, it isnt nearly the strain on him that it is on me. When I have to pay 20% of my uncovered health expenses for my household of 6, its a much larger chunk of my income than his. So why do I have to pay the same health insurance, property taxes, sales tax, etc on 1/4 of what he makes, and he doesnt have to pay SS tax after 90,000 of his salary? I dont want HIM to pay MY bills, I just want him to pay his fair share of his own bills.

[GregFL]

I get exactly what you are saying, and there is a huge flaw in your logic Because the system is Losing money.  Expanding the system by  Increasing the base pay and benefit amount does nothing to change that, it only perpetuates the same problem.  In fact, it accelerates it.

It reminds me of an old vaudville joke, two guys go into business.

First guy:  Partner, we are losing money on each sale, what will we do?

Second guy:  Simple, we will make it up on volume!

[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2006-05-23 20:07 ]

[SHH]

OK Greg, since youre so brilliant, you tell me how you think you would fix it. And while youre at it, explain to me why its not fair to tax the wealthy equally as much as the middle class or lower class?