Don't Cut Social Security -- Double It

[flyboy56]

Social Security’s needed expansion

excerpt;

...

Yes, we need to reform Social Security, but the reform should increase, not cut the income support that millions rely on. In an important political blueprint for sensible reform released by the New American Foundation, Michael Lind, Steven Hill, Robert Hiltonsmith and Joshua Freedman call for adding a supplement to Social Security that would guarantee all retirees about 60 percent of their average wage in retirement (similar to that of most other developed nations).

They would pay for the expanded benefit not by increasing the payroll tax rate but by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, particularly those now offered to private retirement plans that disproportionately benefit the wealthy (à la Mitt Romney’s famous $100 million IRA plan) They would also lift the payroll cap to make Social Security financially stable.

The authors argue that the United States would end up spending about the same percentage of gross domestic product on the overall retirement system, but with a much fairer distribution of support. This would also stabilize and improve the overall economy since the elderly will spend those extra dollars, giving a boost to aggregate demand.

...

Just another way for the fed to filter more printed money into the economy. And who wouldn't turn down a bigger paycheck? Roll those printing presses.

[banner1124]

Yes but most of hem are "paying" it with money given to them.

And a large portion are probably getting EIC so their net tax burden is still probably a profit to them.

What a bunch of bull. The only way anyone pays FICA taxes is to have a freaking JOB. Which means the only way you pay FICA taxes is with money you've earned.

And as for the EIC, the people getting that aren't the ones who wrote the tax laws, and aren't even responsible for having the laws written, so it's a bit disingenuous to hold them accountable for that.

[bmore_ken]

What a bunch of bull. The only way anyone pays FICA taxes is to have a freaking JOB. Which means the only way you pay FICA taxes is with money you've earned.

And as for the EIC, the people getting that aren't the ones who wrote the tax laws, and aren't even responsible for having the laws written, so it's a bit disingenuous to hold them accountable for that.

Not to mention if you get the EIC it means one thing. YOU'RE POOR

[flyboy56]

Is sure am glad to see all that money being used to improve the middle class is working so well. I bet the rich are enjoying Bernanke's stimulus policies.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

[flyboy56]

Is sure am glad to see all that money being used to improve the middle class is working so well. I bet the rich are enjoying Bernanke's stimulus policies.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...cans-affected/

[banner1124]

Is sure am glad to see all that money being used to improve the middle class is working so well. I bet the rich are enjoying Bernanke's stimulus policies.

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – As President Barack Obama is set to begin his second term, new statistics on America’s poverty rate indicate that nearly 50 million Americans, more than 16 percent of the population, are struggling to survive.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/...cans-affected/

What I'd like to know is exactly how they "updated" the formula.

And exactly why would the numbers come as a surprise to Congress when they were making their estimates on what they thought would happen to the numbers based on a formula that's apparently no longer in use?

[CajunRaven]

Interesting article that ignores the elephant in the room. A SS trust fund that takes in more money would be no less irresistible to more "borrowing" by our gutless politicians to fund general gov't operations and the pork for their districts.

They're drooling at the thought of that possibility.

[dsummoner]

Government has already made itself a liar with the Federal Soviet Roosevelt socialist security boondoggle.

Surely, if the 'program' has merits, individuals should not be forced to participate in said 'program' and should instead be allowed to make such a decision of their own volition.

[Contumacious]

Fiscal cliff chatter about slashing the venerable program ignores its fundamental potential and underlying strength.


It's not as crazy an idea as it initially sounds.

excerpt;


As the nation tiptoes closer to the fiscal cliff, a frightening number of leaders on both sides of the political aisle seem ready to push poor, beleaguered Social Security over the edge. Not only would that be a huge mistake for the nation's future, but these leaders show a dreadful misunderstanding of the new challenges faced by the U.S. retirement system. Particularly in the aftermath of the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression, none of the proposals on the table are grappling with some stark economic realities. How we settle this New Deal legacy will decide fundamental questions about what kind of society America will be for generations to come.

Here's the dilemma that the United States faces. Since World War II, individual retirement has been based on a "three-legged stool," with the three legs being Social Security, pensions, and personal savings (the latter primarily centered around home ownership). But two out of three of these legs have been chopped back to blunted pegs, leaving the retirement stool as an unstable, one-legged oddity.

.....

Since its inception intelligent Americans have been trying to stop the illegal tax without success.

The Boston 2nd Court of Appeals declared social security unconstitutional. But SCOTUS reversed them because Justice Cardozo, somehow, believed that it made good actuarial sense.

Of course, we know better.

The Politicians ought to abolish it.

Americans older that 50 years should get their promised retirement funds , the federal government should sell lands in order to pay those folks.

Those 49 and younger should direct their retirement funds towards Fidelity or Vanguard.

.

[Brohan]

Fiscal cliff chatter about slashing the venerable program ignores its fundamental potential and underlying strength.


It's not as crazy an idea as it initially sounds.

excerpt;


As the nation tiptoes closer to the fiscal cliff, a frightening number of leaders on both sides of the political aisle seem ready to push poor, beleaguered Social Security over the edge. Not only would that be a huge mistake for the nation's future, but these leaders show a dreadful misunderstanding of the new challenges faced by the U.S. retirement system. Particularly in the aftermath of the largest economic collapse since the Great Depression, none of the proposals on the table are grappling with some stark economic realities. How we settle this New Deal legacy will decide fundamental questions about what kind of society America will be for generations to come.

Here's the dilemma that the United States faces. Since World War II, individual retirement has been based on a "three-legged stool," with the three legs being Social Security, pensions, and personal savings (the latter primarily centered around home ownership). But two out of three of these legs have been chopped back to blunted pegs, leaving the retirement stool as an unstable, one-legged oddity.

.....

People are used to their social programs fraud $'s too; should we double those?

[RIKMAN]

I'm surprised...gee let's spend more of somethign we don't have!

[flyboy56]

What I'd like to know is exactly how they "updated" the formula.

And exactly why would the numbers come as a surprise to Congress when they were making their estimates on what they thought would happen to the numbers based on a formula that's apparently no longer in use?

Hopefully the formula being used is more precise in calculating the poverty rate.

The Associated Press reports that the new figures are based on an updated formula devised by the Census Bureau to help give the government a better understanding for how to use safety-net programs.