Greenspan to Congress: Cut Social Security Benefits

[PLATO]

“This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation’s resources — demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken,” Greenspan said. “For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371103/

I guess I will have to increase that ole 401k contribution.

[Wraith]

What? You were seriously counting on getting money out of Social Security?

Wraith
"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages."
-- H. L. Mencken

[MrFun]

Wraith siting!!!!

[chequita guevara]

There are lots of things they can do to save SS, but cutting benefits across the board for future retirees is NOT one of them.

[Spiffor]

What? There were still welfare benefits in the US? What, are you commies or what?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There are lots of things they can do to save SS

and these would be?

[pchang]

eligibility dates

SS was supposed to cover people in their waning years, back when people who made it to 65 had another 13 or so years to live on average. Nowadays, people who make it 65 have another 18 or so years to live. The eligibility ages should be indexed to life expectancy just as the benefit levels are indexed to inflation.

Also, the overall life expectancy back in 1940 wasa only about 64 (which some will note is less than 65).

[PLATO]

Re: eligibility dates

Originally posted by pchang
SS was supposed to cover people in their waning years, back when people who made it to 65 had another 13 or so years to live on average. Nowadays, people who make it 65 have another 18 or so years to live. The eligibility ages should be indexed to life expectancy just as the benefit levels are indexed to inflation.

Personally...I would still prefer to retire at 65. I want to enjoy my "golden years"

[pchang]

Re: Re: eligibility dates

Originally posted by PLATO


Personally...I would still prefer to retire at 65. I want to enjoy my "golden years"

And hence the over expansion of the program beyond its original intent and its pending insolvency.

[Sava]

Originally posted by PLATO


and these would be?

remove income cap on the amount taxed... currently, the highest amount people are taxed on SS is $87,000 or so... that means... someone making $10,000,000 gets taxed as if they made $87,000.

That is terribly regressive and not fair.

BTW, the common misconception about SS is that the money that is taxed is being saved for our retirement... that is not the case. The current money going into the SS fund is used for benefits to ppl currently collecting SS.

So, by creating a private savings account out of SS, you are taking money OUT of the benefits that retirees currently receive.

Most people are greatly misinformed when it comes to SS, how it is taxed, and how it is paid out. If we got rid of the taxable income cap on SS, it would solve all the problems.

Oh wait, but it's more important that rich people making hundreds of millions have an extra million dollars rather than millions of people having a decent government retirement.

[Gatekeeper]

The income ceiling is interesting ... anything above a certain amount isn't taxed for Social Security. So a person making less than that amount pays the tax on their entire income, while a person making more only pays on a portion of their income.

I imagine it has something to do with the notion that the richer folks wouldn't be as much of a draw on SS in their older years, but I can't help but think that taxing one's entire income would be but one way of helping SS out.

Gatekeeper

[Flubber]

It seems like basic statistics that SS will run out of money unless it is drastically changed. Its equally obvious that there are only two ways to fix it. Either less money has to come out of the program by reducing or restricting the benefits AND/OR more money has to go in--meaning more taxes of one form or another.

There's no magic pill.


I look at the public service pension my father draws and it was the same type of - -- workers pay for the current pensioners thinking. IN that case, the government and union comprimised ( gov't added some money to the pot)with the result that current workers will receive much less generous pensions than current pensioners get . . The result was a viable plan but one in which the workers had to work for an additional couple of years to get to the same benfit levels as previously available

[Sava]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The income ceiling is interesting ... anything above a certain amount isn't taxed for Social Security. So a person making less than that amount pays the tax on their entire income, while a person making more only pays on a portion of their income.

I imagine it has something to do with the notion that the richer folks wouldn't be as much of a draw on SS in their older years, but I can't help but think that taxing one's entire income would be but one way of helping SS out.

Gatekeeper

with the top 1% holding something like 60% of the wealth... well, that's a lot of revenue the government is missing out on.

[David Floyd]

All I can say is

Let's talk fiscal responsibility here, people. Mr. Bush, pay attention!

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
All I can say is

Let's talk fiscal responsibility here, people. Mr. Bush, pay attention!

fiscal responsibility???

coming from the guy who thinks taxation is wrong