willbeurdaddy
Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: erieangel
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: erieangel
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: erieangel
Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie.
Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now.
I've heard Boehner, Canter and others say that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. The two aren't connected. As for adjusting social security, it needs only a minor adjustment. The trust fund has enough money to pay 100% of its obligations until at least the year 2045 and then 80% of obligations in perpetuity. That's pretty darned good for a program many people are claiming is not only broke, but is contributing to our debt.
You're off a bit on your numbers, but starting at the beginning:
It DOES have to be addressed to avoid FUTURE deficits, and needs to be addressed NOW, because the more and more people that get closer to drawing benefits the harder it will be to fix. So they are most definitely connected. "Minor" is eye of the beholder. A legitimate long term fix is going to mean raising the full benefit retirement age to 70 over a period of about 20 years, and something on the order of a .5% payroll tax increase. To me thats minor, and consistent with demographics that dictate people will be working several years longer anyway. Others may not think so. Your 100% to 2045 and 80% in perpetuity is off a bit. Under the intermediate assumptions the Trust Fund is exhaused in 2036 and from that point on only 77% of benefits are payable, declining to 74% over the following 50 years. The most important number though is, based on the current benefit structure, the increase in tax rates needed to keep assets and liabilities in balance for 75 years, and that is a whopping 2.2% of taxable payroll...nearly a 16% increase on employers/employees and nearly a 33% increase on the self-employed. That is simply unaffordable. BENEFITS MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW.
Ok, so my numbers, according to you, are off. You still did not address why many leaders in the Republican party are arguing and furthering the misinformation that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit.
As for raising the retirement age. Umm. No. You think a miner, factory worker (what few of them are left), waitress, nurse, is going to be able to work in their career until the age of 70?? Get real. Yes, many professionals--CEOs and others work far into their 70s and 80s but the average salaried employee is unable to for a variety of reasons. There is a better way to address the coming short falls to social security. 1.) eliminate the earnings cap. 2.)means test benefits. Does a millionaire really need that social security check?
First of all, I did tell you why it has to be addressed now. Second, yes, even the occupations you name will be able to work 5 years longer than they do now in 20 years, and will want to. Eliminate the earnings cap? So you want MORE redistribution of wealth than is already inherent in Social Security. Im not surprised that is what a liberal wants, but at least recognize it for what it is. Means testing? Does a millionaire need it? Irrelevant. He paid for it.
_____________________________
Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.
|
Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our d... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread