Call Your Senators and Rep. about Social Security; Don't Change It.

[Eric J in MN]

Social Security is one of the greatest government programs.

It has enough money to be completely solvent for the next 40 years.

The general budget, on the other hand, has been running deficits since Geroge W. Bush enacted his tax cuts.

So is Bush saying we need immediate action to address the general buget deficit of today? No, Bush is saying we need to divert money from Social Security to Wall St. to deal with a shortfall predicted 40 years from now.

The problem is that diverting money hurts Social Security, it doesn't help it.

Bush is fearmongering to get us into a Social Securty quagmire similarly to how he fearmongered to get us into the Iraq quagmire.

Please contact your Senators and Rep. against changing Social Security.

Dial:

1-800-839-5276

and say, "Hello, can you connect me to Senator ____'s office?" or "Hello, can you connect me to Representative ____'s office?"

Then leave a message for the Senator or Congressmen: don't change Social Security; it's good the way it is.

More info at:
http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2004_12_12_republican_con_of_the_week_david_brooks.asp

[imenja]

1. Is not changing it really the solution?

Can we promote an alternative proposal? Pete Peterson says future spending obligations, of which Social Security is a significant part, present a serious problem for American financial stability.

[Eric J in MN]

2. It's solvent for the next 40-50 years.

Changing it is a mistake.

Don't trust Bush to change it.

Let people 40 years from now change it if necessary.

[imenja]

3. Can you point me to something more informative

than the previous link so that I can read up on subject?

[Inland]

5. NYT

Today's business section, today's editorial section, and look at Paul Krugman's articles.

[Eric J in MN]

6. Here is an article by economist Paul Krugman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

[OneTwentyoNine]

7. They can change the income cut off point and make billions for SS

Cuts off now at around 80 or 90K. That means that a shit load of CEO's and other higher ups pay Social Security taxes for the first week of January. After that NO SS taxes are paid in,thats total BS IMO.

Raise the income cut-off to at least 500K or even a million.

[Eric J in MN]

10. Then tell your Congressman that is the only change you want

to Social Security, NOT privatization.

[Inland]

4. Raising the retirement age.

Makes it solvent and gives SS its original justification--insured income for those too old to work.

Any other alternative either accepts the risk of insolvency or makes SS into something other than insurance.

[justgamma]

11. Sure raise the age

that's always the first thing they look at. It's ok for managers, insurance agents, and the muckety mucks. Or anyone who doesn't do the physical work. There are millions of people out here who do. I'm going to be lucky if I make it to 62 without my body giving out.

[Inland]

12. What do you do?

But you are right, its okay for service economy people; and for most manufacturing; and lots of construction; in fact, most workers, period.

Some aren't going to make 65, but why pay the vast majority who can still work, and the substantial minority who choose to keep working, when the system goes insolvent?

Better to put the age at, say, 67, or 69.

[Strelnikov_]

14. Why Not Means Test? Pay Out A Full Benefit Based On Participants

total contribution, amortized as if invested in T-Bills over the years.

Once amortized total has been paid out, means test any future benefit.

[Inland]

16. First, that's overspending twice over.

The system doesn't have enough to pay total contributions in, with a return, much less a means tested benefit on top of that..

Second, you are suggesting an investment plan--getting back what you paid plus interest is an investment return--not insurance, combined with a general aid. If you want a means tested general welfare assistance, you don't need to tax wages as if it were an insurance program for wages.

The only justification for a tax on payroll is to insure the wage income. It isn't a payment because you are poor. It isn't a payment because you are old. It isn't a payment because you are old and poor. It is a payment because you paid part of your wages into a system that would provide when you were too old to earn wages. Simple, direct, and it works, or at least it works better than any other program.

[Strelnikov_]

18. ? How Is Paying Out The Standard Monthly Benefit Up To The Total Amount

the participant would have earned if they invested in T-bills "overspending twice over".

The intent is to let the affluent recover what they paid in, with interest, then means test any further benefit. This is to stave off the inevitable complaining about being cheated out of what they paid in.

[Inland]

19. You don't know how SS works, apparently

Most SS tax goes straight to benefits. It doesn't earn a return. So if you pay out what everyone contributes--plus a return--you are short a return.

Second, you would need MORE money to pay out for the means tested benefit.

Third, the system is already insolvent. You are suggesting more insolvency, not curing it.

Fourth, why? The purpose of social security isn't to give everyone a return on investment. It isn't welfare, either. That's what you are suggesting, a combination of those two. It is an insurance program for your old age. Te purpose in any insurance to keep you safe from the contingency. With SS, its that you outlive your ability to work. What are YOU trying to accomplish?

I don't want welfare, and I sure don't want government forcing investments on me. I want what I paid for. Social Security.

[Strelnikov_]

21. First, The System Is Solvent Until 2045 +/-

Second, I am not talking about a 'return on investment'. As I posted before, I am talking about paying out the 'standard' monthly benefit for a given individual until the total received equals the amortized amount they paid into the system, then they are means tested for any additional benefit.

For example, Hazel paid in $5,000 over the years. If invested in T-Bills, this would be worth $10,000 in todays dollars. Hazel is paid the standard monthly benefit of $1,000/mo., therefore after 10 months any future benefits she receives is means tested. Since Hazel spent all of her working life working as a maid for Mr. B, she does not have much savings, therefore the standard monthly benefit is continued.

You say you do not want welfare, but by your definition that is what SS is, considering that most people collecting SS today have received in payments the total they personally paid into the system within a couple of years.

Once you have been paid what you contributed, why should working people paying into SS today support someone who does not need the money. Isn't that a form of welfare? Is that fair to those younger workers? Are you just opposed to means testing?

[Inland]

22. The current system is solvent until 2045. But your suggestion

would not be. The only thing I can figure is something you may be leaving out--that one gets what they paid in but only if they survive, so that the what you paid in plus interest measure is in reality a cap, then it is means tested and paid with the money gained from those who died young and never received anything. Since the system already relies, in an actuarial sense, on people dying young and not taking the benefits, it seems that all you are adding is an incentive for old people to fall below a "means" threshold before their social security balance runs out. I don't see the solvency problem solved except by lowering benefits, which is the worst case scenario anyway.

The fact that most people receive more than they paid in does not make it welfare. Some will end up winners in the insurance game. Some don't. And if the dollars to the winners exceeds the dollars from the losers, it makes the system actuarily unsound, much as a life insurance company that charges too little in premia is unsound.

The attraction of social security is that it is NOT means tested. The reason why young people should pay into the SS system is not because the recepients are in poverty. They should pay because the system provides insurance against the day that they are unable to work due to age, the day that may, or may not, come to themselves, their parents, their friends and family, and every person who worked and helped build this country.

The only solution consistent with the purposes and means of social security is to raise the retirement age. Old age isn't what it used to be. It isn't 65, and that's nobody's fault. The system is hurt by people living longer, and it can be helped by people being able to work longer, if we just accepted the fact as relevant. Move the age to receive social security up two to five years, and the solvency is assured. No huge changes. No big calculations. No disincentives to save for old age. No hardships for those who actually can continue to work.

[Strelnikov_]

13. Peterson's Concern With SS Is That The Promised Benefits Will Not

be there due to Federal deficits, primarily caused by Medicare spending, once the baby boomer's retire.

His contention is that the SS trust is not really separate from the general fund on a practical level.

[alcuno]

8. I think the payroll tax should be changed.

People earning over 87,000(I think that's it) should have those higher earnings taxed.

[Eric J in MN]

9. OK, you can tell your Congressman that. It isn't part of Bush's plan (NT)

NT

[Radical Activist]

15. They better change it!

I'm not about to stand for 1/3 of my paycheck going to subsidize my parents and grandparents generation in the form of social security and medicare. We need to invest in the future of America too.

[Eric J in MN]

17. What type of change would you want? (nt)

nt

[Radical Activist]

20. eliminate the social security tax

make it come out of the general tax fund and have it be need based, just like any other entitlement program.

[Eric J in MN]

23. Then there would be demonizing of people on Social Sec.

just like the welfare queen stuff.