Dem. Congressman Offers 1st Soc. Sec. Fix

[cal04]

Breaking with party leaders, a Democratic congressman plans to introduce
Social Securitylegislation, saying his first commitment is to his constituents. Rep. Robert Wexler (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., said Friday: "I have the largest amount of Social Security recipients of any Democrat anywhere in the country. My allegiance to seniors is greater than my allegiance to the Democratic Party."

While Wexler is proposing tax increases that would clash with President Bush's pledge not to expand the existing payroll tax, his legislation was heralded by the White House in part because Democrats had steadfastly refused to offer an alternative to Bush's plan. The president's proposal calls for creating private investment accounts and a new method for calculating future benefit growth.

Democrats have refused to put an alternative on the table until Bush drops his insistence on private accounts, which they say would destroy the Depression-era system by depriving it of critical funding."I would be surprised if the president were anything but pleased there is another voice with the courage to stand up and put a proposal on the table," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. "Obviously we haven't seen the specifics on this plan, but I think the president welcomes anyone who wants to work in a good-faith effort to solve the serious challenges facing Social Security."

Wexler's bill calls for a 6 percent tax on all income above the current $90,000 cap. Three percent would be paid by workers and 3 percent paid by their employer. At the same time, the bill would reinstitute "pay-go" rules for federal budgeting, requiring that any tax cuts or increase in entitlement spending be paid for either by raising taxes or cutting spending elsewhere. The requirement expired at the end of 2002. Wexler's proposal, which he will unveil in Florida on Monday, would not require any cut in scheduled benefits or increase in the retirement age, and it does not provide for private accounts.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050513/ap_on_go_co/social_security_21

[Inland]

1. Why raise taxes to build up the trust fund that pubbies will steal?

Bush is willing to steal a trillion. Why build up two trillion?

Why put ourselves forward as the party of taxation just for Bush's or the next pubbie cretin president's sake? For the slight possibility of a lowering of benefits in forty years? Forget it.

[Massacure]

9. Better to take it from those earning more than $90,000 instead of less.

[Inland]

13. It's just more taxes disguising Bush deficits, to be stolen later

after the pubs run for ten election cycles on how dems are to blame for a huge tax increase.

Screw that. I'll take my chances that the economy will do okay and the worst case scenario won't happen. Let it ride. No new taxes on wages.

[Massacure]

26. You don't get the point. The point is that it isn't on the middle class.

And on top of that, money in the general fund doesn't go to pay for Social Security.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. What is not middle class about 90K/yr?

I don't know where you live, but if you live in the urban coastal areas, AKA the Blue States, 90K is most definately middle class. If you live in or near any of the major cities, 90K for a family of 4 is so far from 'wealthy' it is a joke. It is the Blue State metro region working middle class families who will be, once again, bearing the brunt of this tax increase. Thanks for declaring us to be wealthy. The rethuglican corporate greed heads, the truly wealthy, will be laughing everytime they deposit their tax free dividend checks, every time they cash in their tax free stocks, while spending their tax free inheritence, laughing about how they snookered those stupid 'fair' and 'reasonable' Democrats again.

[johnaries]

102. According to Wikipedia,

"Though net worth usually determines social class, incomes between $20,000 and $75,000 are generally considered middle class."

Even if in your area 90k is considered "middle class", it still has to be upper middle class. Personally, I think the cap is unfair, no matter what "class" you consider yourself to be in. Why should someone making 90k+ pay a smaller percentage than those making less?

[MissWaverly]

38. You're wrong, not stolen later, stolen right now

right now the SSN surplus is being spent as soon as it comes in, GWB said so, He just gave 31 million to the fundies for faith based initiatives thru HHS and is spending millions to build bases in (freedom is on the march-Iraq) and is closing bases here. (Do you recall any legislation to authorize this-no, it's being siphoned out of SSN. There should be no more money pumped into to SSN to be recklessly squandered.

[dmr]

67. You are absolutely right, Ms.W

He's already taken close to 700 billion dollars since the 2000 coup.

No one should be able to touch that money. Imagine how nice it would be if that 700 billion was still in the coffers. But what does he care? He's not a normal taxpaying American citizen by any stretch.

[MissWaverly]

69. not one penny

our money is burning a hole in his pocket, let's not give him more
to "blow." I am really good at doing that myself. Especially since
he is closing down bases here and opening them in Iraq and talking
about closing Walter Reed.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. How about we raise 'it'

(whatever 'it' is) by rolling back the bush tax cuts instead? Huh?

[Massacure]

25. Social Securty doesnt get money from the general accounts.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Right

But on the other hand SS funds are rolled into the 'general account' and replaced with t-bill notes. The surplus goes into general revenue and is used to fund the bush tax cuts. Starting in 2018 there is no surplus. That is the crisis. What's a billionaire to do? Here is what they are planning: raise SS taxes now so that they don't have to pay back one dime of the surplus while they continue to party with our money. Give back the capital gains tax cut? never. Give back the dividend tax cut? over their dead bodies. And keep your hands off of the 3M+ estate tax cut. No, middle class working families should be handed another huge tax hike on salaries so that the corrupt corporate thugs running our country can continue to have their way. Plus, lets be sure to maneuver so that the rethugs can blame the democrats for the tax increase.

The 'other crisis' is the one in 2042 when theoretically if the economy really sucks for the next 37 years the payout from the SS t-bills plus FICA revenue will no longer be sufficient to meet benefit payments. Lets take a look at raising FICA in 30 years or so, ok?

[Massacure]

70. Our money? Do you earn more than $90,000 a year?

Besides, SS gains interest on those T-bills don't they?

[Warren Stupidity]

91. huh?

First of all, my income is none of your business. Second, what is your point with that headline?

But when I said "our money" the "our" refers to every person making a salary income who is paying into FICA. FICA is running a surplus and OUR MONEY - the surplus FICA revenue is being used to subsidize capital gains, dividend, and estate tax cuts. Raising even more money through the regressive flat FICA tax on salaries is an abomination.

However, since you are so gung ho about socking it to working people: people whose income is primarily derived from salaries and wages, perhaps you would like to take on the Great Unanswered Question here.

WHY ARE YOU PROPOSING RAISING THE FICA TAX WHEN SS IS RUNNING A SURPLUS?

[Massacure]

106. Think of it this way.

A 6.2% tax on people making less than $90,000 is more regressive than a 6.2% tax on people making less than $90,000 plus 3% on everything above $90,000.

A person making $35,000 a year won't pay anymore than they are now.
A person making $90,000 a year won't pay anymore than the are now.
A person making $100,000 a year will pay $300 more per year.
A person making $200,000 a year will pay $3,300 more per year.

People making more than $90,000 a year are well off enough that it won't ruin their lives. Sure it would be better to just to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, but if this is what we need to do to shut the republicans up about privatizing 1/3 of social security so that people are able to gamble with the money, so be it.

Besides, we don't even know that this plan will pass. Maybe it is just a bluff to make the Republicans look bad? Would the Republicans even agree to tax the rich in order to subsidize the rich?

[Warren Stupidity]

108. Answer this question:

Why are you proposing raising even more revenue from the FICA tax while it is running a surplus and while SS is solvent, under the worst case scenarios, until 2042?

[MichiganVote]

2. Well as a middle income American UNDER 55 I say

screw your "good faith" efforts to rob me of the money I've paid in for decades!

[stevebreeze]

56. actually you have OVERPAID for decades...at least since 83

the trust fund represents the overpayment of taxes by working people. That the * administration would like to treat the trust fund as "worthless IOU's" should tell you their intent.

[MichiganVote]

60. The whole thing makes me feel sick. Crooks in Washington

[salib]

3. This and the responses sure look like a plant.

1. This has already been proposed.
2. It would simply be un-doing "tax reform" legislation under Reagan.
3. Saying that it is "breaking" with Dems is silly, it is somewhat strange timing though.
4. Why should people who earn over $90K not have to contribute AT LEAST the same percentage of their total income to SS?

[Disturbed]

5. Maybe BushCo sent this sellout

money to his Swiss Account?

SS could be straightened out easily. It has been rehashed hundreds of times. The BushCo SS scam should be trounced visciously by all Dems.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Sellout??... BWAHAHA... ~gasp~ HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I take it you've never heard of the extremely honorable Robert Wexler.

This is a good man who does good things. I haven't looked at this plan closely, but Rep. Wexler truly does share our values.

NGU.

[NorCalDem]

7. I could live with people making greater than $90K not paying...

the same rate as everybody else. Let them pay 3%, but recieve much smaller or no SS check. The 3% just comes out as a "good faith" bonus for the lower class who props them up in society by doing eveything the need done, making the things they want and/or buying the products they sell. Shit, they should ask to pay 4%, just as payback for decades of class exploitation.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ldf]

48. huh? what is wrong with a reasonable option?

besides, it's getting crowded under THIS bridge. :-)

reducing the amount of tax for incomes over 90k is an option. why not? it's an alternative to not taxing that income at all. in my opinion, 90k is a nice income. if you can't arrange to save a little for the future off that, you may need to rethink your spending priorities. (and before you leap, i live in manhattan, and don't make anywhere NEAR that, but do put aside a meager amount each month. hopefully, with ss, and small retirement pension - if it isn't defaulted on by jeb bush's state of florida, a la the airlines - will hopefully keep the basic bills paid. but that is all it will do. no highlife, golden years for me. unfortunately.)

i also agree with the need's test. if you don't need it when the time comes, you don't get it. the rich should NOT be receiving it. they did NOT fall through the cracks and this is not a safety net for them. many of those rich may have made it all on their on. but a very large number inherited their worry-free economic position.

everyone did not receive the same breaks. and even those who did receive all the breaks, made bad decisions. they were just lucky enough that it didn't put them in the poorhouse.

social security is NOT about YOU getting back what YOU paid in.

it is about helping those, in their senior years, who do not have the support for a dignified end of life. the ones most able to help should be the ones TO help. common sense.

it is NOT about getting it back, just because someone paid into it, to add to their own pensions, retirements, investments, dividends, so they can maintain the luxurious lifestyle they have become accustomed.

social security = "it's a safety net, stupid", for those who fall between the cracks.

maybe we should bring back, and make respectable and honorable, the concept of noblesse oblige.

we do, unfortunately, have that huge economic class difference, that is just getter more pronounced, where the rich make it on the backs of the poor (walmart, anyone?), so let them take on the responsibilites of the nobles. afterall, we serfs made it possible for them to amass their riches.

the other option, as related to another post, on another thread, is that everytime the rich leave their gated communities, it will be in bulletproof limos, surrounded by their own personal security, going only to well protected destinations, hopefully avoiding a bomb on the way.

at that point, they may have wished they had made a little more use of the oblige they had enjoyed as the noblesse.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. why should FICA go up at all?

It is running a surplus. It is COLA adjusted. They are already using the surplus to fund tax cuts for billionaires, what exactly do you think they will do with an even bigger surplus?

[mopinko]

40. 4. because benefits are capped

it is not a tax, it is an insurance premium. it has a max payout, it has a max pay in. you want to let me and bill gates have unlimited checks in our old age, you can charge us unlimited premiums now.
besides, us folks in this tax bracket at the last ones paying taxes.

[salib]

57. Sorry. It is not a "what you pay in is what you get out" type

of "insurance" plan. It is not an insurance plan, per se. If all that was needed was an "insurance plan", then privatize away!

Of course, we know that SS does much more, and provides much more stability to society, than an insurance plan. Just the comparison points to one of the most pernicious problems facing the left, i.e., alwyas making comparisons to the constructs of capitalism. The fundamental assumptions of insurance plans as they are done today are based upon purely capitalist economic assumptions. SS is one of many very necessary compensations for such assumptions. To do its job, it must be different than the conventional wisdom of the business world.

Now, since I do not pay in what I get out (BTW, I am WAY over the max pay in myself, but no where near Bill Gates, who probably would not really care since this is income not wealth we are talking about) there is no reason to cap the amount of payments. Remember, it is also a compensation for the inequities of our pseudo-capitalist society that leads to old age and disability based poverty. One does not get rid these social ills by expecting those people to pay for it.

As such, it is silly to associate in much of any way, how much one gets versus how much one pays. The restriction for greater salaries (over about 90K) was part of Reaganomics. Used to be called Voodoo economics, I seem to recall. Now, I would simply say "faith-based economics."

So, let's go with the straight-forward long term solution of removing the cap on contribution income. We NEED social security as a society. We do NOT want to return to pre SS social ills.

[mopinko]

65. what you get out IS based on what you pay in

and it is an insurance plan. you don't get a dollar out for a dollar in (which would make it an investment plan, which it is not), but you pay xx in premiums, you get xy in benefits. straight line, simple arithmetic progression. it is an old age annuity, with survivor and disability programs. it is not intended to compensate for the inequities of anything. it is intended for all the workers in this country to invest together in an efficient plan, with no commissions, fees, or thefts.
i am actually quite disgusted with many here at du who do not appreciate the dangers of turning ss into a welfare/income redistribution program. it is the third rail precisely because it is not a handout. people already own it in a way that you cannot ever own welfare.
what's more it is not fucking broken, so don't fucking fix it. there is not even a shortfall, unless the entire economy is in the tank for the next 20 years. the only problem with it is that the looters are sacking it, like robber barons love to do to pension plans. falling for this bait that it needs fixing is just plain stupid.

[salib]

66. Not true. You know that!

If one is disabled, then one gets benefits earlier. Dependents get payments, which has nothing to do with how much was put in.

Be disgusted all you want, SS is not an insurance plan. That is already available, and SS is there becuase insurance plans do not solve the problems SS was set up to solve.

Finally, why the hostility? F'n this and f'n that is silly. I do agree that it is not broke. However, it will indeed be some day if we do not make some adjustments. Or, more importantly, un-do the adjustments made during Reagan's reign.

[mopinko]

68. those benefits are based on input

survivors benefits are based on what was paid, there is just a different standard for the number of quarters that you need to qualify.
i'm hostile about the ignorance shown here again and again about the program, the issue, the soak the "rich" attitude, and the love of the "simple solution". i guess i should just quit posting in these thread, cuz it just bugs the crap out of me.

[Warren Stupidity]

92. No Dont You Dare Stop

You are not alone. There are several of us who are taking on the misinformed here everytime this comes up. We need to keep going at them again and again and again until they damn well get it.

THERE IS NO SS CRISIS. UNDER THE WORST CASE SCENARIOS SS IS FULLY SOLVENT UNTIL 2042. EVERY EXTRA DIME OF INCREASED FICA TAXES WILL BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRES, WAR FOR OIL, AND THE TALIBANIZATION OF AMERICA. WAKE THE F UP DU'ERS.

[mopinko]

95. it's just so discouraging

that people can't see through this smokescreen. you like to think that liberals are intelligent. then you see this kind of shit.
i said many times in the reagan years- for every complex problem in life there is an solution that is simple, obvious, and WRONG! it is the root of much evil. that they are swallowing the idea that there is a problem is bad enough. that they have no idea what ss is, how it works, and why it is what it is, ggrrrrrrrrrr!

[salib]

107. Perhaps you should.

You certainly do not seem to have progressive or liberal arguments and convictions.

However, you might want to think about the real point of what I said that you have danced around to avoid: if it is simply an insurance plan then use TIAA-CREF. That is not what SS is, that is not what SS was intended to be, that is not what was and is needed. Anyone can get an insurance plan. I have one. A good one. Through a "non-profit" insurance company. It does not, cannot, will not, do what SS does and is needed to do.

[mopinko]

110. perhaps you should

just support your argument. name calling will not win the argument for you. knowing what you are talking about might help. you sure don't.

[salib]

113. Mopinko, I agree with you in many ways!

No, we do not need to "fix" SS anytime soon. Yes, I would just as soon see SS taxes returned to pre-Reagan era rules. And, yes, that was a "fix" then too. Mostly, the fix was on, as you obviously understand.

My disagreement is mostly about what SS is and is not. I so strongly believe that SS cannot simply be an insurance plan. If that were the case, then there would not be such a need for it. That is my fear: that liberals end up believing that is all it is. It was needed precisely becuase alternatives that were, and are, available which were and are indeed insurance plans, would not accomplish what SS does. It is modeled somewhat on insurance concepts, and that has given it both better financial solvency and better political traction. But, ultimately, it has to be more. It ended one of the real scourges of our society: namely, that it does not matter how well you plan and put money away, and try to insure yourself. You too could be runined by misfortune. SS steps in.

And, you are right that payments are often, but not always by any means, tied to income during working years. However, that in many ways was an attempt to be "fair" and "consistent." I.e., how else would one determine how much "should" be paid out? It made sense to associate the $$ with what someone had already earned, as it probably closely related to what that person needs in the future. Different places cost different amounts to live in. Different lifestyles mean different costs, etc. And again, there is the "fairness" question, i.e., what you invest is what you get.

I just do not ever what to see end, what is a very effective program that ends tragic poverty. We truly are fortunate to have it.

Finally, what name calling? I called some things you wrote "silly". I certainly did not decend, unlike some here, to "F'n this and F'n that." Now, about supporting one's arguement, are you EVER going to address what I have said about how SS is more than an insurance plan and is needed as such?

[desi826]

4. How much you wanna bet he's a DLC'er?

It was only a matter of time anyway.
Everyone KNEW the Dems would cave, they are weak. Collectively.
Wall Street is throwing too much money at them (as well as the White House doing everything to pressure just ONE Dem to betray their party) for them to resist----even in an election year.
Unless seniors in his district were calling him and complaining, he has no excuse. And it was seniors that started the SS resistance, so I highly doubt this.
He prolly thought the fact that he has the highest concentration of seniors in his district would give him cover, but if that's the truth, they should vote his ass out.
Unbelievable.
Des

[Massacure]

10. What the hell are you smoking?

He's raising taxes on those earning more than $90,000 a year and not cutting benefits. That's what you want them to do.

[BlueIris]

15. Yeah, I want some.

Not the biggest fan of the DLC over here, but--come on. This plan is at least--feasible.

[KittyWampus]

11. Usual DU DLC Nonsense. Wexler Is One Of The Good Guys

and he kicks GOP ass everytime he's on tv.

EVERY time.

He's one of the few that's been actively working for a paper trail, for instance.

Edit- and I personally find it hard to believe he's doing this WITHOUT COORDINATING WITH THE PARTY LEADERS.

Right now the Democratic Party needs to NOT look obstructionist (Bolton, Judges).

This at least puts an idea on the table... an idea that will NOT be accepted by Junior.

[wicket]

104. AMEN!

[FlaGranny]

105. Thank you.

Wexler is one of the very best.

[mitchtv]

14. Vote him out?? he's one of the bravest and best

his plan is a good beginning. Taxes are fine when the buy something. Please don't buy the Puke theory that we are over taxed. I am a senior and Wexler's is the common sense approach.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. $50

You can search for DLC members at: http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm

You can donate my winnings to the Special Olympics at:

https://ssl.charityweb.net/specialolympics/

[mainer]

6. Well, it's a plan. And it would work.

It's a perfectly good plan, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. It is a horrible plan.

[leesa]

43. You keep saying that, but you don't say why. end the cap, it's only fair.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. I've said why several times right here in this thread

1) FICA is a tax on salary only: dividends, capital gains, and inheritence all escape, all of these were targets of the bush tax cuts for billionaires.

2) SS is running a surplus - why are we raising the tax rate?
(None of you have even attempted to answer that one.)

3) the 'cap' rises every year as it is COLA adjusted.

4) unless you are calling for the elimination of the cap entirely then the very wealthy will continue to not 'share the burden' at the high end, so 'raising the cap' will be a politically stupid and unfair additional tax that will primarily hurt working middle class families in blue-voting urban coastal areas where 90K is not a lot for a family to live on.

5) if you are talking about eliminating the cap entirely then FICA is going to run massive and indefensible surplusses far exceeding SS payout requirements and consequently it will replace the progressive income tax with the regressive flat-rate FICA, and once again democrats will have stupidly played directly into republican hands.

Do you want me to go on?

[Hamlette]

50. as to the objection we are playing into their hands with a "flat tax"

SS is the most regressive tax imaginable NOW. Those earning 90K and under pay at the same rate, 6% (or so). Someone who makes 90K pays about $5,400. Those making OVER 90K pay at a decreasing rate. So that someone who makes $250K pays less than 2%. How would making everyone pay at the same rate make it MORE regressive? Flat is not more regressive.

It was the people targeted by this proposal who have already gotten the benefit of Bush's tax cuts. This will take it back closer to where it was.

Let's say we make FICA truly progressive. Those making under 50K pay no FICA. When there is a crisis with SS next time, under the progressive SS tax plan, people who didn't pay into it won't have a very good argument that it should be saved. The "it's my money, I've been paying into it for 40 years" argument won't have the heft it does now.

That is NOT to say I'm arguing against a progressive FICA. I think we should make it more progressive than it is but good arguments can be made that everyone pay into it. It makes us all vested and therefore, hopefully, more interested in saving it. (god, I can't believe we are still fighting the battle over whether SS is a good thing or not. But, we are. And probably will be off and on forever.)

[Warren Stupidity]

61. I mostly agree ( I think)

I'm ok with the current FICA tax as it is, with everyone paying in up to a fixed cap (COLA adjusted.) Everyone gets pretty much the same benefit, assuming that they are at or near the cap for 20 years. I happen to like that arrangement as it puts all of us in the same boat, which by the way, and as you more or less point out, is why the rethugs hate it. They would in fact prefer SS to be corrupted into a means tested welfare system for old people instead of a universal old age pension plan.

The point I was making is not that raising or eliminating the FICA cap would make FICA more regressive, but that the huge new surplusses that would result would be used to subsidize continued and/or additional income tax cuts, reducing the federal revenue from the only progressive tax base left: income tax. I suppose that particular effect is somewhat obscure and complicated. I know I'm having trouble explaining it, but it seems rather obvious to me that this is all another shell game, and that you have to look at the whole picture or else you get bamboozled.

[johnaries]

103. I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying.

Because of the cuts in capital gains, dividend, and estate taxes instead of an "income" tax we currently have a "payroll" tax. As I said in another thread, I don't think people who are too rich to have to work should get a free ride on their non-payroll income. I think these taxes should be re-instated. But, I think the additional income from these taxes should be used against the deficit.

While true that SS taxes do provide a surplus now, at some point in the near future that will reverse. So, I am in favor of raising or eliminating the SS cap and putting the funds in Al Gore's lock box so they can ONLY be used for SS benefits.

[mainer]

96. Why wouldn't it work?

It's not a "rate" hike. Instead, it simply extends the tax on income above $90,000, which now gets off scot free. No benefits would be cut, and people of all incomes would be getting their full checks after retirement.

As one of those who'd be hit hard with the extra taxes, I'm still all for it, because it's the simplest solution, and it keeps all of us invested in the system.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. Exactly what problem are you fixing?

Be precise.

[Straight Shooter]

8. If he were from any state but Florida, I wouldn't look under that rock.

I suspect all kinds of little nasty crawlies are hiding there. Same goes for Texas. If a Dem "breaks ranks" to work in *cough* good faith with bush, then it's best to leave no stone unturned to find out what their true agenda is.

[salib]

16. Hey everyone!

The trolls are over here, under this bridge!

[lovuian]

18. I like that it doesn't raise retirement age and it beats Private Accounts

but I bet Bush won't like this one!!!

[Warren Stupidity]

24. They would be happy

to use our SS contributions to subsidize even bigger tax cuts for their buddies and get to blame Democrats for the increase, and still manage to run out of money in 2042 or whenever. Oh wait, I know, it will all be in a 'lock box' and everything will be under 'pay-go'.

[Gloria]

19. Now Bushco can beat up on Dems over raising taxes....

Right now they're "welcoming" the "good faith effort" but you know that's bullshit...they'll use it as a bludgeon.

Did he inform Harry Reid who's been playing it cagey??

[Warren Stupidity]

20. SS is running a surplus and will until at least 2018

So why are we falling for the trap of raising taxes?

This is exactly what the rethugs want: a dem proposal to raise taxes.

There is no SS crisis. SS is just fine. SS is running a surplus.

There is a spending crisis in washington. There is an epidemic of irresponsible tax cuts in washington. SS is being used to subsidize irresponsible tax cuts going primarily to the very wealthy - not working middle class families making 90-200K, but people making 300K or more, estates worth more than 3M, people with substantial income from dividends and capital gains. The Democratic solution: raise the regressive SS tax so the billionaires can continue to party on with our hard earned money. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

[Moderator]

27. kick to combine

[Judi Lynn]

28. Florida's Wexler first Democratic to offer Social Security fix

Florida's Wexler first Democratic to offer Social Security fix

By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer

Last update: May 13, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Breaking with party leaders, a Florida Democratic congressman plans to introduce Social Security legislation, saying his first commitment is to his constituents.

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler of Boca Raton said Friday: "I have the largest amount of Social Security recipients of any Democrat anywhere in the country. My allegiance to seniors is greater than my allegiance to the Democratic Party."

While Wexler is proposing tax increases that would clash with President Bush's pledge not to expand the existing payroll tax, his legislation was heralded by the White House in part because Democrats had steadfastly refused to offer an alternative to Bush's plan.
(snip)

Wexler's bill calls for a 6 percent tax on all income above the current $90,000 cap. Three percent would be paid by workers and 3 percent paid by their employer.
(snip/...)

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Politics/Headlines/03PoliticsSTAT01051405.htm

[bklyncowgirl]

29. Sounds reasonable

Of course it's a non-starter with the GOP.

[TomClash]

35. Reasonable?

Self-employed people already pay 12.4% of their income up to $90,000 in SS payroll taxes alone. If you make over $90,000 in NYC, you probably pay more than half of that in taxes. Now you think it is reasonable to pay more for a problem that doesn't exist?

It's reasonable to increase federal income taxes to pay for vet's benefits, health care, medicaid and so on. But SS? That's crazy.

[ibid]

36. It is both reasonable and a path to lower SS rates in the future

once "all income" is digested as the tax basis,

"single rate" will be the next Dem War Cry as we get the 12.4% dropped back to the 10% level.

[TomClash]

37. Why?

Do the math. There is no SS problem. The fund ran a huge surplus last year - which was used for the War and tax cuts. The "problem" begins in 20-75 years. Who can predict what happens that far ahead?

Screw these bullshit "solutions" especially politically expedient ones like Wexler's "fix" which looks a lot like a shell game to me. I'll go you one better - a true national pension and health care plan - that I'll happily pay more taxes for.

[ibid]

52. WE AGREE ON "true national pension and health care plan" - BUT

the rules of the game have always, since 1940 to date, been to change the benefits/tax structure if the middle of the conservative projections done by the SS actuaries showed a problem in 20 years.

Granted Bush has made all 3 of the projection's a bit more conservative - changing the game a little - and the moving on a problem that does not show up for 40 years is a rather major change in the game's rules

but the media can not be taught - and certainly can not write - about how this 'change must be nade this year because of possible problem 40 years from now' is a change in the rules, so the best way - IMHO - to end this game is to agree to end the wage cap as the "solution"

[TomClash]

54. That makes no sense

Treasury "borrowed" $154 billion from the Trust Fund last year.

I think these estimates are much more conservative. They do not take into account the fact that fewer people will be able to retire, unless disabled, because more and more people will have to rely upon inadequate 401(k), SEP-IRA and other "plans" rather than pensions.

Ending the wage cap means a significant tax increase to people earning over $90,000 who in my city are hardly "rich." I'm happy to pay more for other government programs but not because the social security system might run out of money in 40 years. Tax me for this nonsense and there will be a corresponding decrease in contributions to Democrats.

[ibid]

73. We agree on the logic - but I need to sell you on the no wage cap goal!

No wage cap means the 15 to 20% of wages that now excapes the payroll tax would be pulled in - allowing a possibility for a future cut in the tax rate of a like percentage of the current 12.4%.

As you note, the SS payroll tax currently pays general expenses to the tune of $154 B.

If the payroll tax pays general expenses, all income should be taxed in collecting it.

The effect is the same as bringing back the 39.6% top end rate that we had under Clinton.

I do not see that as "class warfare" - or as an attacked on the Urban middle-class.

[TomClash]

76. Don't you see what you're doing?

Recognizing the common good, Social Security is a contract between the US and the people - all the people. That's one reason it is so popular. You get it whether you make $20,000 or $200,000 during your working life. Your plan simply makes it a welfare plan for old people who aren't working - the sure path to its destruction.

There is a $90,000 cap under the current system because there is a ceiling on what the guy who makes more than $90,000 can get back - he gets the same amount whether he makes $90,000 or $900,000. By eliminating that cap you make the payroll tax a second, somewhat flat tax on income, less progressive than the current income tax. Frankly, you might as well roll it up into general revenues - that will be sure to destroy SS once and for all - it willlook like any other welfare plan.

I get your plan. It's a backdoor income tax increase disguised as social security reform. For the integrity of SS I'd rather keep to its original purpose or expand it into a national pension scheme, not roll it into general revenues.

[ibid]

98. I want million dollar benefit checks from SS - more earnings means more

paid in taxes

and more obtained in benefits.

Giving current formula full benefits to the super rich is only a 10% hit to the total net benefit of bringing all wages into the system. As a percentage of payroll the gain drops from 1.9 % to 1.7%

I believe the Feb 2005 Social Securial formal estimates on this proposal (it was one of 17 or so proposals that were evaluated in that letter/memo) have been posted to DU's Social Security group.

It is the opposite of a greater welfare look - rather than just the lower paid getting something, all are in the system and all benefit - so it becomes a "right" - albeit with a progressive structure, but not welfare.

[Moxygirl]

77. In reponse to the no wage cap

idea. I'm pleading a bit of ignorance here but every time I hear "eliminate the cap" I can't help thinking of all the rich people who don't collect a red cent of payroll income and wouldn't be affected a bit by this approach. It seems that in addition to no cap the democrats need to create a meme of their own and it goes something like this.

1) Republicans made a promise to middle class americans in the 80's to strengthen SS.

2) They lied because they took our money and gave it to the rich in tax cuts.

3) Hammer on corporate welfare and make note of obscene CEO pay.

REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT....

Then run in 2006 and 2008 on a get the rich to give back the promise Reagan made to the baby boomers platform.

So I guess I'm for a ruthless class warfare strategy aimed at making anyone who got the SS surplus via *'s tax cuts into evil guys (ie gay marriage)who HATE AMERICA.

[ibid]

99. true - treating investment income the same as wages makes sense -

but one step at a time.

The fix to include investment income is easy - it is just an alternate use of the current overpayment of Social Security credit line so as to capture the Social Security tax on investment income, plus a rather easily written computer accounting interface to transfer the income credit to SS records, and to transfer the extra Social Security tax to the Trust (easily written because it is already written and in use to adjust and refund excess payroll tax paid by 2 job types that exceed the cap).

[Warren Stupidity]

63. I don't get that at all.

You start out saying that the rules are x, where if x is applied there is no reason to increase the FICA tax. I absolutely agree.

You then go on to say that the lying cheating bastards are using new bullshit rules they invented to concoct a crisis that, by the old rules, doesn't exist.

And your recommendation is that we cave in to the lying cheating bastards and vote in some additional new FICA revenue for them to plunder for the next 20 or 30 years.

:wtf:

[ibid]

72. No wage cap is my goal - we have 2 Federal Income taxes - and getting

the payroll tax to a flat tax is a goal all by itself.

Indeed, a lower overall payroll tax rate would be step two.

My suggestion is not based on a need to solve the Soc Sec problem. I do not believe there is a Soc Security problem.. But as long as "something" must be done on SS - the "something" I like is ending the wage cap.

[Skwmom]

30. What Bush plan?

I thought all he put on the table were ideas. Plus didn't he tell the Democrats to wait until he came up with a plan?

[OzarkDem]

42. Exactly

He hasn't given any details for his plan, its all spin.

Another repeat of his Medicare "reform". No one knew what a disaster it was until after it was passed.

With Bush, what you see is never what you get.

[Kenneth ken]

31. tentatively good

another snip from the article:

" Wexler's proposal, which he will unveil in Florida on Monday, would not require any cut in scheduled benefits or increase in the retirement age, and it does not provide for private accounts. "

I will wait to see what it does and doesn't do, but from what little information is in the story, it sounds okay to me. Basically all I can see is that it eliminates the payroll cap.

[TomClash]

32. Why fix what ain't broke?

SS ran a $154B surplus last year. That money was lent to Treasury.
So seniors today don't need the money.

Do you know how much revenue the economy will generate in 2042? No, you don't and neither do they.

How many people will have enough money to retire and collect SS? Not many other than public employees, who have pensions.

In short, this crisis is a crock.

[sandnsea]

33. peechee

The Democrats plan is to raise taxes, only idea Democrats ever have. I can hear it now. The dumbass.

[TomClash]

34. And for no reason on top of it nt

[w4rma]

41. Looks good to me. Of course big media spinned it as I expected they would

but the Democratic plan, itself, is very good.

[yurbud]

45. Beat GOP at their own game--make flat tax all the way up at LOWER %

That way, GOP would be fighting to keep tax from reaching rich.

[rocktivity]

47. He's just pointing out the obivous

Why not raise the cap if bigger deficts and smaller benefits are the only alternatives? And by the way, the higher you raise the cap, the more the current 6.2% rate can be reduced.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Warren Stupidity]

49. FICA is running a surplus

bigger deficits and smaller benefits are not the only alternative. You have uttered what is classified as a false dichotomy. Until 2042, by current projections, there is no SS problem at all. How about we wait 30 years or so to see what the situation really is? Meanwhile we can check in every 5 years or so to re-evaluate the long term projections.

Oh, and by the way, nobody is proposing lowering the FICA rate and eliminating the cap entirely. Wexler proposed keeping the rate COLA adjusted at the current levels but doing a one-time cap-raising. The very wealthy high salary folks in the 200K and above range would continue to not pay above the cap, folks with substantial dividend capital gains and inheritence income would continue to enjoy the bush tax cuts for billionaires using Wexler's new huge FICA surplus to fund the ongoing party at our expense by the wealthy class.

[rocktivity]

51. Just because "nobody is proposing" eliminating the cap and lowering FICA

doesn't mean it's not a viable idea.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Warren Stupidity]

59. no it means that it is irrelevant to this discussion

Rep Wexler of Florida proposed Plan A. In response you say Plan B is a wonderful idea. Great. Maybe somebody will propose your plan and then we can discuss it in a different thread.

Now perhaps you could reflect on why nobody is proposing a fair and honest reform of FICA taxes, why instead we get sneaky underhanded bullshit every single time.

[TomClash]

55. Thanks for actually getting it. nt

[ibid]

74. The minority party could think 2 steps ahead rather than one, eh?

Because a reduction in the rate is not on the table does not means that it is not part of of a progressive view -

no wage cap can be seen as step one in a two step.

[Selatius]

53. REPEAL THE TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP

Raise the dividend taxes, and cancel the tax cuts for the top 5% in the nation as far as income goes. Some of the revenue generated from doing this could be placed into the SS trust fund to push back the the date of insolvency indefinitely. The rest of the revenue could be poured into helping Medicare, Medicaid, public education, protecting the environment/worker rights, etc.

This seems feasible, but I'm not an expert to hash out the details.

[dkofos]

58. And while we are at it,

lets put a cap on defense spending.
By next year we will be spending as much on defense as the rest of the world.
I personally think we could cut it back to 2x the #2 defense spender
(Russia ~75b.

[TahitiNut]

62. Where are all the "Supply-Siders"???

After all, it's a tenet of "supply-side thinking" that revenues are increased if tax rates are decreased. So... when will we hear one of these Laffer-zealots propose lowering the payroll tax rates in order to increase Social Security revenues??

Funny about that. I guess it's only a handy rationale when it comes to lowering taxes on the wealthy. (Hypocritical fucks!)

[Bozita]

71. Lower the FICA rate to 5% but tax ALL income

If I'm working for my income, that income is taxed.

Why should investment income be treated differently? And don't give me that bullshit about investors creating jobs.

Demand for product creates jobs.

Sell it as a tax cut.

[ibid]

75. I agree! :-)

:-)

[TacticalPeek]

78. Democrat to break ranks, unveil retirement bill (Wexler, FL)

Democrat to break ranks, unveil retirement bill
Sat May 14, 2005 04:27 PM ET
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON, May 14 (Reuters) - A Florida Democratic congressman plans to unveil next week a proposal to bolster Social Security finances, in a break with his party's rejection of a White House push to revamp the retirement system.

The proposal by Florida U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler would raise taxes on those making more than $90,000 a year, with a goal of relieving expected financial strains on Social Security as the baby-boom generation retires, a spokeswoman said. Wexler is to unveil the plan on Monday at a luncheon in his district.

The move amounts to a break with Democratic strategy. The party has remained mostly unified in its refusal to take up U.S. President George W. Bush's offer to negotiate on changes to Social Security. Democrats want Bush to first abandon his drive to establish private retirement accounts within the Social Security program, and the party's leadership has shown no signs of wavering.

But Wexler's spokeswoman, Lale Mamaux, said the congressman was responding to the interests of his district's many retirees. "We have been looking into this for a couple of months," Mamaux said. "A lot of our constituents are very concerned about this issue."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy called Wexler's proposal a "step forward," in that he was offering a way to tackle the financing difficulties facing the 70-year-old retirement program, but said the White House wanted to study it.


more
http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=8492683



F************CK! What part of unity does he not understand! Enough with the Will Rogers schtick!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

79. Wexler has been chopped to take the point...

With the only alternative plan that makes any sense whatsoever. Everything else is just going along to get along and would be trumpeted as a triumph by Chimpy. This presents the situation in stark relief.

[AuntiBush]

80. Rethugs won't accept it. They want to destroy SS. Not Reform.

They're idea of reforming Social Security is to continue to rob the SS kitty, and put those unaccountable I.O.U's in there.

At least Wexler is saying, "Ok Bush." Here's our plan: Raise taxes on the those that make more money. But it should be the ones making way more the 90, admittedly. It won't go through. It's not part of the chimp's disasterous plan which is to kill it all together.

GRRR! Don't get me started on the SS issue.

Bush: Keep your hands off my only means of retirement!

[ibid]

81. Set the over cap rate at 50% of the 12.4% - and give 50% credit

for those over cap wages toward an increased benefit.

[Journeyman]

85. Can you explain that, ibid? . . .

it may be that I'm just slow, but I'm not following what you're proposing (I've never been good with finances).

[LiberalFighter]

82. They should be unified behind this plan...

at least the part of lifting the cap and not creating private accounts. The 3% on both employers and employees I am not sure about.

Democratic Boyd of Florida has joined with a Repug that would allow private accounts in their plan. That Democrat needs to be slapped hard.

[FlaGranny]

83. This article

is so misleading it doesn't deserve comment. Makes it sound like Wexler is siding with Bush. Nothing could be further from the truth and he's certainly not the first Democrat to suggest SS taxes on income over $90,000. In fact, it's a good idea.

Robert Wexler puts most other Democrats to shame.

[flygal]

84. That's what I thought

God forbid the actual jist of the story get out - that SS can be saved by raising taxes a little on high income earners. Nah, that wouldn't compete against the runaway bride.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. There is no SS crisis

SS is running a surplus. The only thing SS needs to be saved from is the evil bastards trying to wreck it and the misguided and misinformed who are stupidly helping them to do it.

[electricray]

86. Wexler's seat is relatively safe isn't it?

Perhaps he was sent to remove the only tool that the Republicans had. If they can't say we haven't advanced any ideas they have to actually advance their own and once that happens we can shred them.

[tkmorris]

87. Wexler is my Rep

And believe me, he won't be leaving it until he decides to run for a higher office. They don't even try to beat him, they can't touch him.

I am betting that he was asked to carry the water on this one, and as a matter of fact I'm rather proud of him for that. It likely means that he is being groomed for bigger and better things. I can see him as Lieutenant Governor, or perhaps challenging Mel Martinez in 2010. Wexler is young, he has time.

[electricray]

88. I'm impressed with what I see so far

[Cha]

100. I loved Congressman Robert

Wexler during the 2000 selection fiasco in Florida..he was on tv a lot standing up for all the votes to be counted correctly!

I guess he's no relation to IIana Wexler who gave her famous "Kids For Kerry" speech at the Dem Convention in Boston?

[spuddonna]

89. From what I read, it sounds ok...

He's proposing to extend the FICA tax on earnings over $87000 (or whatever the ceiling was), there would be NO private accounts, and no decrease in benefits.

I'm going to hold-off on any firm opinion until I hear the rest of the plan on Monday, but frankly, I'm glad SOME democrat had some sense to offer an alternative to Bush's plan... If the only air time we get is us framed as sayiing "no" then, yeah, that's what people will remember!

Hell, what we should REALLY do is come up with an alternative SS plan AND throw in a national health care plan to boot! And make it SIMPLE fer Crissakes! No 3000 pg bill, just say something like "The Healthy American Medical plan(HAM for short) is an 80/20 plan for everything (meds, hospital, in home care -everything!) and the 20 can be set up as a monthly bill that will be adjusted based on earned income."





We can at least TRY!!

[iconoclastNYC]

90. He must be drummed out of the Democratic party.

The democratic leadership drew a line in the sand and he crossed it. He must be made an example of.

We won't get anywhere if we allow part traitorism.

[Gold Metal Flake]

94. Why has there not been a call to protect the SS trust fund from being...

rolled into the general fund? CAll it a "lock box" or whatever, the need to do so is obvious. No attempts to increase funding into SS should occur until the surplus funds are protected.

[Cha]

101. Excellent Point!

Al Gore could come back with a timely "Lock Box" speech that knocks the socks off Americans!

I like your pictures.

[Robworld]

109. Now the Republicans cant say the Democrats don't have a plan

The Republicans biggest response to their social security scam was that the Democrats didn't have a solution to fix social security, and that is why we have to go with Bush's lie.
Now that there is an option what will be there new excuse?

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Warren Stupidity]

112. the plan

is to protect SS as it is, to require the government to honor the SS trust fund t-bill debts, and to not fall into the trap of proposing additional new salary taxes generating additional new revenue for the rethuglicans to squander on tax cuts for billionaires, war without end, and the talibanization of america.

It ain't broken. The plan is don't 'fix' it.

[november3rd]

111. Pay back the trust fund

Dem Plan:

Pay back trust fund
Cut defense/oil imports
balance budget
invest in alternative energy

oil imports may enrich Bushco, but they will bankrupt UHmerica.