I wanted to point out that Bush's plan for Social Security would allow taxpayers to divert "4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts."
Obviously, the more you earn, the more stock-buying power you have with your 4%, and the greater your return (if the plan works). Once again, Bush's financial agenda tilts toward the top, and does least for the people who need the most help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Obviously, the more you earn, the more stock-buying power you have with your 4%, and the greater your return (if the plan works). Once again, Bush's financial agenda tilts toward the top, and does least for the people who need the most help.On the other hand, it's the rich who pay the income taxes in this country (the bottom 50% of wage earners pay essentially no income tax), so why shouldn't they reap more benefits from private accounts?
By the same token, what the working poor DO pay is FICA tax, so if you claim to care about them, then Social Security taxes should be your #1 enemy.
And for a working gay to support Social Security in a post-DOMA world is very depressing. You do understand the mechanics of spousal benefits, I hope (?)
Taxes are not my #1 enemy, the tax *structure* is. I'm all for re-working the code to shift the burden off the poor and on to the people who can afford to pay.
Look, social security is a program meant to be a safety net for the least fortunate among us. People who aren't going to need social security can only cite greed as a rationale for complaining that they don't benefit as much as they might from it. That's not a worthwhile discussion.
If higher earners want to reap benefits from private accounts, well, they're the ones in a better position to invest in stocks or bonds on their own. No one is preventing them from doing that. If the point is to encourage smaller investors, there are many kinds of tax incentives we could talk about.
DOMA has all kinds of problems, not the least of which is that it is unconstitutional. I have no doubt that the right case when brought before the Supreme Court will show that definitively. Also, the way spousal benefits are currently set up, even if they disadvantage gays, is no reason to scuttle the program. It's a reason to tinker with it.
And for every criticism you might come up with of the existing system, the simple truth is that Bush's plans don't actually solve any of them...in fact he's creating giant new ones.
And ps, the bottom 50% are disproportionately affected by sales taxes; and the recent MTA fare-hikes are basically a transportation tax on the poor and middle-class.
C'mon Andy, remember you're the devout one. Why can't you remember the 8th and 10th commandments? Don't steal and don't covet what your neighbor owns. Yet you want to take by force the money of the "rich" so that you can redistribute it to the "poor". Conpassion paid on someone elses dime is pretty cheap.
Thanks for the smartass comment about blacks being genetically inferior. And you're wrong about black mortality rates being lower due to primarily higher infant death rates. 1/5 of white males die between the ages of 50 and 70. 1/3 of black males die between those ages. So I'll say this slowly so you can understand -
If you die before you reach the age of 62, you have no chance of collecting benefits, and if you die shortly thereafter, you will not recoup the payroll taxes you paid into the system. So in light of the higher death rates for Black males above 50, they are getting hosed.
You know, you gay guys don't have the longest lifespans either. It's one thing for you to want to donate your S.S. contributions to the Feds, but selling out your brothers in sex is another.
Makes me think of a guy who works with my wife. When his partner died (before retirement age, que lastima) and left his partner his possessions, I bet the my wife's co-worker would have liked to inherit the deceased partner's retirement account (alas the the money was dumped down the social security toilet.) Where's your compassion now?
I don't want to take anything by force. I simply can't imagine why people begrudge so much paying into this extremely worthwhile program. If people really understood social security - and you plainly don't - they'd cheerfully throw money at it.
You wrote, "you will not recoup the payroll taxes you paid into the system." Buddy, that's NOT how it works. How many times do I have to say this? It's not a savings account, it's not a dollar for dollar exchange. It is a social agreement whereby the younger generation promises to take care of the older generation, and what makes it fair is that the next generation will take care of them, and so forth.
I don't see someone who lives longer and collects more payments as "lucking out." I see it as our national collective responsibility to ensure that they have at least a minimum monthly amount of money coming in for the rest of their lives so they can live in dignity.
You want to justify Social Security through Scripture? Okay, how about "Honor your father and mother"? Broadly taken, I think that means to take care of all of our elders.
Deuteronomy 15:10-11: "Give LIBERALLY and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'"
You might also visit Matthew 25:31-46.
My statistics about African Americans and social security came directly from a recent column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times in response to Bush's speech to black leaders last week. I highly doubt those statistics are wrong. For one thing, I was classically trained as an actor. Question number one when developing a role is always: what is your motivation? Why on God's green earth would Krugman lie? What do liberals stand to gain from lying about an imminent collapse of the social security program? Absolutely nothing. It makes zero sense. Liberals stand to gain from strengthening the program, but you charge that we're bankrupting it. Give me one good reason why we'd do that!
(Furthermore, offer a SINGLE proof that Bush's plan is a) less expensive and b) works.)
And um, excuse me, the fact that your wife's co-worker couldn't inherit his deceased partner's social security benefits is NOT a flaw with the social security program. If you die, she inherits your social security payments. So the problem is not with SS, but rather with our federal government which chooses not to recognize committed same-sex relationships. Suggesting that I lack compassion for my fellow homosexuals because I support social security is absolutely ludicrous. It's the conservatives who are doing the lacking by pushing stuff like DOMA (yes, I know Clinton signed it, no one ever said he was perfect) and the stupid Constitutional amendment.
Oh, I forgot to point out the biggest flaw in your reasoning.
My friend, right now, what you get out of Social Security is not "your" money. It's your kids money.
If we change to Bush's plan, what goes into the private account actually IS your money, but the plan -- according to Bush, even, check the SOTU speech -- will be set up so that you can't withdraw from that account until you've reached retirement age. Let's say you die before then. If you've got a wife and children, okay, they could inherit it, but let's say you don't. Whoops, money wasted.
Additionally, once you stop working, you stop paying into the fund. Let's say you stop working at 65 and live until you're 103. What are the chances your stock portfolio has grown enough that you can live for 38 years on it? With the current system, those checks keep coming.
And finally, you fail again and again to address the biggest threat: what if, when you need that money, there's a recession or depression? Your account could conceivably be worth less than you paid for it. Then you're SCREWED. Won't happen with social security. The checks keep coming.
I might also add Jesus' classic defense of paying taxes. Take a dollar out of your wallet...is that your picture on there? Is that your money? Render to George Washington what is George Washington's. That's America's money.
Taxes are taken by force. Don't believe me, try not paying and see what's left in your bank account or what happens to your property.
You say you don't want to take anything by force. But you support a system that does just that, because you like the outcome? Sounds like you approve of the taking.
And I pay my taxes. But I believe that taxes should support a limited government. I trade some of my liberty for protection in the form of a standing army and local public safety (fire, police and things like sanitation, courts, building inspections, etc).
Much beyond this and government is redistributing wealth. Taking by force from one person to give it to someone the government thinks is worthy. Taking by force is stealing.
And all your fine talk of collective responsibility and dignity. Again I say compassion paid with someone elses money is cheapness on your part.
My parents and relatives are my responsibility if they fall on hard times, not the government's. And maybe I'd have more cash to support my father and in-laws in such an event if all I paid in taxes was for was a limited government.
We are to honor our parents. But your expansion to taking care of all old people is not the meaning of the text. Remember when Jesus got on the Pharisees for "corban". The Pharisees had declared their property belonging to the temple or "corban". In other words they gave the money to the church rather than use it for taking care of their parents.
You chide me to give liberally. But taxing me is not the same as me giving, is it?
You doubt Krugman is wrong? Go check and see. The Bereans were found to be more noble by Paul because they checked his preaching against the Old Testament scriptures. And if you don't believe he lies, type "krugman lies" in google and see. There's 594 web sites that believe he does. And they make some pretty good arguments along with documentation.
And liberals gain through lies by scaring the electorate to vote for their guys (I can't believe you don't see this). And you all love to keep the Black man down on the plantation. Can't have him making his own decisions, no sir. Just trust the white master to care for him and all's his chilluns.
As for marriege, get government out of it completly (with one exception). Make marriage an enforcable contract between whoever wants it. Government's role would be in handling contract disputes between the parties.
Amigo, every liberal would agree with you that the government has a responsibility to take as little money as possible from individuals and to spend what money they do take wisely. Social Security is one of the wisest, most effective programs going.
In your ideal world, would you pay no taxes? The interstate highways didn't build themselves. Quality schools with the necessary facilities, equipment and well trained teachers just don't materialize out of the ether. The police aren't volunteers. The list of worthy things your tax money does is virtually endless.
I for one -- and I know I don't speak alone on this -- am willing to pay for a better America. There are things that the federal government has sole responsibility for, and additionally, other issues where the federal government can play a role that no other private institution or organization could. No liberal thinks government is the answer to all the problems, but we fully support the idea of using it to help where it can. I can't believe you think there's something wrong with that.
When you talk about being generous with other people's money, you act like I don't pay taxes myself.
And it's great that you feel a sense of duty and responsibility to your family. You should. But some people are truly victims of circumstance; they simply may not have the financial resources to take care of their family members in need. And sometimes people find themselves all alone. There are seniors out there with no family left. Who helps them if not you and me? And why do you feel robbed by that?
If you're going to level charges of fear-mongering as a political tool, I hope you're not going to do it in defense of this administration because that would be the grandest hypocrisy ever. And really, in terms of social security, it's Bush using the scare tactics when he uses words like "bankrupt." Even if he were right -- and he's not -- the social security deficit pales in comparison to our inability to pay for his Medicare bill. I'll try not to mention our war against an impotent, weaponless dictator.
Your remarks about Democrats and race relations are beyond the pale and not worthy of response.
First off, what's wrong with a little wealth redistribution? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Secondly, why don't we just solve this whole discussion thing by nationalizing healthcare? That'll take a whole lot of stress off of the social security crisis.
The most important thing is that we take care of the most vulnerable. It is fine to say that you will take responsibility for your parents, but what about those who are childless or those who have had their children die? What about the parents of the unemployed or mentally disabled? It is not nearly as simple as you'd to reduce it to. We as a society have to take care of the weakest. That includes their food, housing, and healthcare. Those things are basic human needs and not to meet them so that I can drive a fancier car is inhuman.
What is true religion? To take care of the widows and orphans. (James 1:27) Sounds like a decent proposal to me.
No time to be sepcific, but there’s all kinds of the stuff about widows and orphans (scan Isaiah, Jesus, maybe Paul ---ooh ooh, the early Christian communities had real issues about supporting the widows, but I don't remember if it was in Acts ... pretty sure it was, I think it was in context of Paul-brought-gifts-from-his-"converts"-do-we-accept-them ...
when Peter said yes Gentiles can be saved also ... anyhow, I'm pretty sure those gifts were to support the widows and orphans) all that stuff is relevant.
I don't think Bush's plan is a great idea. On the other hand, I have some reform ideas about government that might result in some reform of SS. I DO think we need a saftey net, and until we Christians put up we should shut up about taking social support out of the government's purview--sure as hell our private charities aren't up to it, and any unstupid reading of the Bible, however much you accept as cultural or literal truth, does not let us escape without a basic responsibility for "our brother": from Cain/Abel, Joseph et al, all that Isaiah (and other exile prophets') stuff about the downtrodden and abandoned, to the New Testament: Jesus' taxpayers and prostitutes and Samaritans (how do you treat your neighbors?), the communal living of the original Christian communities, Paul and then Peter's bringing in of the non-Jews. Pisses me off that we allow ourselves to believe "ideologies" defined by powerbrokers. I am "conservative," but damn if I support Bush's "thinking" on energy, environment, or economic issues!!! He's hella not "conservative" on any of those! Freakin' Republican Party.
So I don't know how you’re is reading the Commandments, but if someone reads the whole _Bible_ it's hard to support the thesis that Social Security does the work of Satan. I think old and disabled people being able to eat at least somewhat regularly SHOULD be gauranteed. If it takes a government program because our individuals are too
self-absorbed, go government. Hopefully someday we will get usefully reoriented and support our needy locally and personally, as God does suggest Biblically is the best model.
KR
Post a Comment