You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #29: It is in my nature to be a contrarian [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. It is in my nature to be a contrarian
Edited on Wed Feb-16-05 09:56 PM by lumberjack_jeff
Social Security is intended to do two things;
1) Guarantee a minimum retirement pension so that retirees have a minimum level of dignity in their old age, and
2) Guarantee disability income for people who are unable to work, or if they die, for their dependents.

The "premium" for this insurance coverage is a tax shared between employee and employer. A certain level of premium entitles the worker a certain level of retirement income. At $90,000 per year, the retirement income that the premium entitles the worker to is considered ample, and thus above the system's mission.

So, IN MY VIEW, lifting the cap means one of three things;
1) IF the benefit schedule is expanded upwards to provide commensurate benefits to high income SS tax payers, then Social security is now for something more than minimum sustenance to avoid poverty. On the other hand,
2) if the benefit schedule remains as it is, so that a retiree who earned $200,000 gets the same benefit as a retiree who earned $90,000 as a worker, then it's not insurance anymore. At that point it becomes partially a wealth redistribution system (welfare).
3) benefits are still cut, but the excess revenues remain available to pay for tax cuts and wars.

My feeling is that Bush is doing whatever it takes to avoid the need to tax capital. A wealthy worker is still a worker and thus a better
Republican target for taxes than an investor or a corporation.

Not that there's anything inherently bad with the wealth redistribution, but it opens a can of worms that Social Security has thus far avoided, and is the reason for its popularity. I think you only raise the cap if there's a demonstrated crisis. At likely levels of GDP growth, the Social Security System has ample resources to pay benefits for everyone alive today, and predicting the economy beyond that timeframe is not useful.

Our grandkids will die in the next ice age anyway.

http://bulletpoint.blogspot.com/2005/02/17-trillion-in-unclaimed-property.html

* edited for organization *
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC