Social Security: Another Dem Excuse for Wealth Redistribution
The Social Security issue has been a mixed blessing for Democrats. While they have succeeded in beating down the president's popularity numbers to the lowest point in his terms to date (which are still high by historical standards), they have been taking heavy criticism for not having any ideas of their own.That is about to change:
Democratic senators on the Finance Committee this week quietly floated a document titled “Savings Options,” which sources say is designed as a counter to Bush’s plan for personal accounts in Social Security. The document, obtained by The Hill, details several legislative possibilities, including a mandate on employers to provide payroll-deduction savings options for all employees.Fine so far. Or youth will get some sort of retirement savings option, even if they aren't government-selected funds. If done correctly, this could be a valid solution.
Then there's this:
It also tackles low-income incentives for saving by setting up accounts at birth in which the government would deposit $500 for each newborn and $1,000 for families with below-average incomes. The accounts would allow parents to contribute more money until the child turns 18, “with a government match for contributions from lower-income parents.”So the government will start using our tax dollars to fund retirement for people beginning at birth, years before they get a job from which to retire.
Blog post #4776 in category
Social Security
posted 30 March 05
Basically it's another welfare program, ponzi scheme. If they just allowed the people the option of diverting a portion of the money being taken from them, we wouldn't have to pay out $500 to $1000 for every baby being born........
They would be able to save money and invest for their retirement and still be able to afford the necessities now. If you keep taking the same percentage of money and ask people to save more, how are they supposed to pay for the necessities now? How much would it cost to pay $500 to $1000 for each baby born now?
Now, in the short term the Presidents plan is expensive but over the long term it is a wash. The payout amount for recipients that diverted money would be less by the same percentage that was diverted.... And the private accounts would be theirs, it can be willed to your family upon your death, and low income families would be able to build wealth over the next several generations.
Posted by debsay on Friday at 3:03 PM
At least this guy is willing to discuss it. I would prefer some wealth distribution in cash form that goes into private accounts to your regular monstrous government programs that both do redistribution and also are eye-gorgingly huge beurocratic messes and top it off with inefficiency and backward incentives!
The backward incentives are some of the worst problem and they make the whole mess build on itself...
Private accounts are the only way to go. Its absurd when people try to twist it around and make it look any different. My stupid local paper had an "impartial" expert who said that private accounts would end up only paying 3.5% compared with 3% that ss pays now. My allergies are acting up, but maybe I'll attack it tomorrow. The only way to get those numbers is to take the worst case most unlikely scenario for stock market and ignore what that would mean for treasury bonds and then also assume that 2% is spent paying some kind of stock broker (for doing what?! - index funds charge 0.2% and it should be at least that cheap)
So many dems are just flailing about like lunatics over this. I really hope that those with ideas get the courage to talk about them and lets work this out. Dems hate seeing social programs go away - they live for expansion of social programs. Lets not give up, as RWN has.
Posted by liberty on Friday at 6:59 PM
That sounds suspiciously like Harold Ford, Jr.'s ASPIRE proposal. Watch for this idea to get "modified" so there's an exception that allows families to withdraw the money for "emergencies." Health care for the child would be the likely first.
Posted by mike hollihan on Saturday at 1:57 PM
Oh! Why does your mind boggle, AP? It's not called "cradle to grave" for nothing, my friend.
Posted by mike hollihan on Saturday at 1:58 PM
peiapii poiuyt http://ghjkliree.com/
Posted by Emery on Sunday at 3:49 AM