WP - R. Cohen "Social Security Slam-Dunk"

[madinmaryland]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15128-2004Dec20.html

Why do I think that the Social Security crisis -- "the crisis is now," President Bush said recently -- is the domestic version of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Could it be that I am hearing the same sense of false urgency? Could it be that the predicted insolvency of the Social Security system is something other than -- yes -- "a slam-dunk"? I wonder.

My cynicism -- like yours -- has been earned the hard way. George Bush has a charming tendency to make up his mind first and then seek the evidence for his decision. This is how he went about deciding to go to war in Iraq -- telling Don Rumsfeld to produce a war plan in the days right after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, even though there was no evidence Iraq was responsible. It did not matter. Bush wanted war with Iraq, Bush got it -- and now we're stuck with it.

Is it going to be the same with Social Security? No doubt something has to be done. Eventually the Social Security system is going to start paying out more money than it's taking in. But no one is really sure when that's going to be. As with Mark Twain's death, news of the Great Insolvency has been prematurely reported, with the date slowly receding as the amazing American economy keeps growing and pumping out funds. Still, sooner or later, the system has to be fixed.

- - snip

[rodeodance]

1. Bush will have to "work" at getting the private aspects--but I think

he will succeed!! Damm

[whistle]

2. The U.S. Social Security fund consists of a shared payment...

...by salaried and wage earning employees of 7.5% of wages up to $84,900.00 and the emloyer share of 7.65% up to the same amount.

The latest private employment figures show that approximately 110,391,000 persons are working and receiving wages and salaries that amount to an average of $533.47 per week in current dollars. That would come to approximately $3,062,294,912,040.00 or just over $3.0 trillion annually. Also, during the election numbers of who were the wealthy and who were poorer were thrown around. But for quick calculations here, let's assume that 16% of all wage earners make more than the $84,900.00 per year that represents the present social security cut-off point. That would mean that about 17,662,560 wage earners are exempt from paying their share of social security after the reach $84,900.00 in salary. That also means that their employers are exempt from paying their share on amounts about that salary level. Something like $25,000 on average from this segment of workers becomes exempt from paying into Social Security or $441,564,000,000.00

The lowest paying workers must receive minimum wage rates which presently stand at $5.35 per hour and the average number of weekly paid hours is right at 36.0. So these workers would bring in $192.60 per week or $10,015.20 annually. Hardly a living wage, but they too must pay into the social security fund at exactly the same rate as a person making $84,900.00.

So the actual current wages and salaries dollars (and this is only an approximation) that are subject to Social Security are $2,620,730,912,040.00. Now let's take the percentage contributions from both emplyees and employers which is a combined 15.15% and that comes to $397,040,733,175.00 annually. Do those numbers appear half way reasonable? If so, that represents and average contribution per active wage earner of: $3

According to the political retoric that is being thrown around, the current system represents colletcion from roughly 3 wage earning individuals to pay 1 recipient (not just retiree's but people dependent on social security due to being disabled or survivors of social security payees who passed on).

[patdem]

3. Though this other thread is locked as a dupe, it has many other links

in the responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=93006&mesg_id=93006