Adviser suggests president could compromise on accounts

[Freddie Stubbs]

By Susan Page
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The top White House economic adviser said Thursday that President Bush was willing to consider making a major shift in his Social Security proposal: creating individual investment accounts that would be an “add-on” to the retirement system, not a part of it financed by diverting payroll taxes.

“We haven't ruled it out, we haven't ruled it in, but we're certainly willing to discuss it,” Allan Hubbard, head of the National Economic Council, said at a breakfast with reporters. “It really comes down to what the proposal is.”

Hubbard's comments were the most explicit discussion of a possible compromise on the accounts by Bush or one of his top aides since the president launched his Social Security proposal in the State of the Union address Feb. 2.

Since then, the president has been pressing the general case that the system faces a crisis that must be addressed and arguing for the value of individual accounts. Now he and aides say they are ready to begin discussing what specific steps should be taken to ensure Social Security's long-term solvency.

more: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050415/a_socialsecurity15.art.htm

[still_one]

1. NO DEMOCRAT IN CONGRESS SHOULD COMPROMISE ON THIS

[Nite Owl]

2. Don't we have 'add-on accounts

already? IRA's, Roth IRA's, 401k's? So therefore nothing needs to be done.

[Inland]

3. More BS, more traps for dems. There aren't any deals with these bastards.

As soon as any dem gives an inch, the rug will be pulled out.

The addon is a tax hike, so Congress will never go for it.

So at that point, Bush will just make a little change in the compromise, and divert SS taxes to private accounts just like he always wanted, and accuse dems of obstructing a good deal on a "minor point".

I can see the ads know--flip flop dems, for private accounts, then against them.

Bushies are such dicks.

[w4rma]

4. Don't trust him. (nt)

[Buns_of_Fire]

5. Mr. "Strong and Resolute" is getting his a$$ kicked...

Here and there, people are discovering that his "private accounts" do NOTHING to "fix" SS -- and even people in his own party are starting to tell him this. That's the only reason they're floating this "willing to compromise" BS.

Forget it, dipstick. The time to "compromise" came and went a LONG time ago.

[TahitiNut]

6. I have a better idea.

Impose a 1% national sales tax on stock market trades and credit the Social Security Trust Fund with this sales tax, less 10% credited to the company being traded.

On a daily dollar volume of $60-$80,000,000,000 (that's billons), the revenues would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion/year.

Equities are (purportedly) property. Sales of such property, conducted (purportedly) under regulations and oversight paid for by ordinary taxpayers at the federal level, should be subjected to a sales tax just like the sale of any property. Stop giving these people a free ride.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. But there currently is no national sales tax

Do you support a national sales tax?

[TahitiNut]

9. Only on the sale/exchange of equities. (Or call it an excise tax.)

Such markets are federally regulated - affording "investors" a market reliability without which there could be no market. Only by force of the government can such equities even exist. The equities and the underlying corporate enterprises fall under the purview of interstate commerce, clearly a federal scope.

If we don't like the words "sales tax" call it something else. Call it an excise tax. After all, a federal tax levied on the sale of every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel is hardly any different.

Why is it that there's a tax on the sale of a building, but no tax when someone buys an entire company? :eyes:

[freedom_to_read]

10. that's a great idea, TahitiNut

... not politically viable (in the current environment, anyways) but it should be kept on the table.

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. It still doesn't

Encompass survivor benifits does it? Or even disiability benifits (people can barley live off of now)

My friend a looong time ago in highschool lost her father when she was all but 12. Those ss benfits allowed for food on the table and clothes on her back.

He's still trying to make major cuts on bennies for those future retirees. So when I retire i'll get nothing

I think Kerry had it right. Tax those that make over 200,000. in just a couple of years ss is safe.

What about alternating taxes for such things? one year they get the tax break, the next they do not. There has to be a way, and he has to be willing to compromise on his bullshit tax cuts.

Why is he trying to overhaul it? Let the next logical thinking! president contend with it. He's done enough damage to world and Americans.

[freedom_to_read]

11. you're talking income taxes

... which should go back up, at least, to pre-Bush levels. But that won't address the solvency of the SS trust fund.

SS is paid for with payroll taxes. I think we should look into raising the 90,000 cap on those.

[insane_cratic_gal]

12. your correct

I lost my mind for a moment happening more often these days. How much longer till he's out office!? J

The other problem, if there are no well paying jobs for families to get how can we support the solvency of the SS fund? If you aren't working you arent paying in. If contracts with India, and China are effective our blue colloar worker sections. Techies, and manfacturing how are there any plans to fix this so people are paying back into the system. I shudder to think with our trade defiect being a stark reminder, just how many jobs we are loosing per year?

Perhaps they should address the economy first before they even touch the SS system.

Less to do with the SS but still a factor if expense for our elderly is the cost of living.
Perhaps we should become a culture that supports our elderly, as Eurpeons do, but without them being punshied for it. It's not only about the cost of medications, it's about quailifications should they live with a child, I believe they are penalized or don't quailfity for the bigger prescriptions cuts if they live with their children. Or why is medical care in this country such a huge money maker at the expense of human beings health?? Repub really are against human beings and for corportations.

[Festivito]

13. Ahhhh, if CONs cannot BORROW their way out, they RAISE TAXES.

1. Adding onto SS how? With a NEW SS tax. Over the 15.2% we UNDER $90,000 a year workers pay.

THAT'S A TAX INCREASE -- on the poor of course.

OR,
2. Biting into the 15.2% means SS will have LESS money to pay our retirements, not more. Borrow borrow borrow.

OF COURSE CONs real intent is to have a private account package available, so in the future when CONs cry about having to pay back what they borrowed, recipients will blame themselves for not having made enough money in their personal accounts, and thus accept their loss of their SS when they need it most. That's why he wants personal accounts.