How to kill Bush** Social Security plans in three little words...

[Rosco T.]

"RAISE THE CAP"

Most people don't understand that after $89,000 people don't pay any more into Social Security, so someone that makes $89,000 a year pays in the same as someone that makes $200,000 a year.

"RAISE THE CAP"

but those people that make $200,000 or $2,000,000 a year can pull just as much OR MORE as those that make $89,000 a year or less. So why not just increase the cash flow into the trust fund??

"RAISE THE CAP"

come'on Dems in congress... make Bush** explain WHY we need another layer of federal bureaucracy to manage the 'personal accounts', when this could be EASILY FIXED by making upping the top end of income that helps pay for the fund.

"RAISE THE CAP"

gosh Mr pResident.. why do we need the expense of another federal department and have 30% of our 'personal accounts' go to fund managers when the existing system needs only 2%?

"RAISE THE CAP"

Three words bunnypants can't refute, and since his own words said "all options are open" he would have a hard time fighting this.

No new federal bureaucracy
No waste of funds for 'management'
Just three little words..

"RAISE THE CAP"
"RAISE THE CAP"
"RAISE THE CAP"

[shaolinmonkey]

1. I totally agree. How old is the $90,000 cap? Has it been

adjusted for inflation or has it stayed there since the 30's?

[Rosco T.]

3. Good question... someone have a good answer?? n/t

[hfojvt]

10. It has been rising steadily since at least the 1980s

I know that because I have been arguing for a raised cap since I found out there was a cap. In 1979 the cap was $22,900. In 1988 it was $45,000. Those numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

[Al-CIAda]

2. three words in response- Game, set, match....I agree -eom

[Anus Retainus]

4. Raise?

No, "remove" the cap.

[SnowGoose]

5. Kick it, baby!

That has *always* bugged the crap out of me. Why on god's green earth would you say that if someone is making a million dollars a year, should that person pay the same payroll tax as someone making under $90,000.

I didn't realize that they can actually get more in benefits than their only moderately well-off fellow citizen, even though they paid the same.

Like they need it. I seriously doubt that many millionaires are counting on that social security check.

[4morewars]

9. And Yet.....

They never turn it down !!!

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. Check out this graphic and thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3052677

[NVMojo]

7. good idea, but there must be a stupid pill out there that most Americans

are taking these days. How can they trust Bush and his word on the dire condition of SS when he has driven this country into record deficits and leaves our babies with a $36,000. birth tax at this point? DUH!!!

[TwilightZone]

8. Yes, but what % of Bush voters make under $89k/year and...

wouldn't be affected?

Frankly, I don't see how this would kill Bush's plan. In fact, it might do just the opposite.

Bush could announce that raising the cap is the only way to fund his ludicrous plan. Tons of people who make under $89k/year would then think that part of Bush's plan to privatize SS is to "tax the rich", so that move might actually help it gain support.

Ugh.

[Al-CIAda]

14. Good point- this would need to be framed correctly.

Make it clear that putting it in the market to gamble and pay enormous brokerage fees is suicide...but if the chimp wants to 'fix' SS all he would need to do is raise the cap.

DONE.

[TwilightZone]

16. Agreed.

But, since Bush's real intent is to kill SS, he's certainly not going to do anything that would *really* fix it!

[hippiegranny]

11. Hear, hear...

I've been saying the same thing for quite some time. Interesting how eager they are to dismantle the only thing keeping the elderly off a diet of cat food in order to not inconvenience the people who can afford to give caviar to their cats.

[Pam-Moby]

12. B*sh is not actually tryng to fix Social Security

what he is doing is trying to boost the economy with all of the influx of new money into the market so that he can state that he turned this economy around on his watch!! Also he is covering his tracks because he has looted the money that is supposed to be in the SS funds for payment to citizens. So when you see his finger is stained with ink and think it is because he supported the Iraqi vote it actually is stained with green ink from all of the green backs that he has stolen!!!

[Al-CIAda]

13. Exactly- They have STOLEN the money and don't want to pay it back

Instead, they want to STEAL again!

[Steely_Dan]

28. This Is Absolutely Correct!

I could not have stated it any clearer myself.

Bush wants to kills SS for sure....But the real deal is getting the influx of fresh money into the market.

Clever, these repugs...very clever.

-Paige

[Liberty Belle]

15. Why stick it to the people earning $90,000

which isn't all that much in areas where the cost of living is high, like NYC or LA.

Bush eliminated the inheritance tax totally. We should reinstate it on estates worth $2 million or more (so you won't lose the family tract home when Ma or Pa dies) and use that money from multi-millionaires and billionaires' estates to fix up Social Security.

[ThorsHammer]

17. Completely agree

The inheritance tax has been a big pet peeve of mine. I'd much rather tax money that is not earned (inheritance), than money that is earned (income). A reasonable exempt amount could be set to provide for education funds, living expenses, and so on, with the rest subject to a higher tax.

[Liberty Belle]

18. Definitely.

The current system rewards spoiled rich brats like a certain White House *resident, keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families.

[ThorsHammer]

26. Yep, I don't have a problem with wealth, but....

I do think it's a big problem when it becomes very concentrated in the hands of a few, especially those who haven't done a thing to earn it. It's fine for someone to make a ton of money through ingenuity and/or hard work, but I have no problem with taxing their heirs heavily.

[EVDebs]

23. Read Chapter 8 of "Perfectly Legal" how we subsidize the rich !

[hfojvt]

35. how exactly is a 6.2% tax "sticking"

True, $90,000 may not be all that much, especially in some areas. But since you mentioned NYC, perhaps you are aware that:
"Community Service Society, a nonprofit social service agency, said that "one-in-five New York workers earns less than $8.10 an hour. Three-quarters of those earning less than $8.10 an hour are living in poverty." According to a comprehensive CSS study, 52.6 percent of low-wage workers are women; six out of ten have a high school diploma; and more than one in ten is a college graduate. Eight in ten are people of color.

More than 600,000 New Yorkers earn between $5.15 an hour and $10 an hour. Some 56 percent of these low-wage workers have no health insurance for their families, 52 percent have no pension or 401(k) plan and 37 percent receive no paid leave.

About 800,000 city residents are eligible for food stamps, but do not receive them. During Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's second term, barriers to access were intentionally created, causing a 42 percent drop in recipients."

However hard it may be to live, much less live the good life on $100,000 a year in NYC. I can assure you that many NYC residents are living on much less, and Republicans have been "sticking" it to them for years. If nothing else, it is payback time.

[cindyw]

19. NO, NO, NO...do not say "Raise", say "Lift"

Seriously, it will take 5 seconds for people to make an association from "Raise the Cap" to "raise taxes". The Repubs won't even have to confuse people and they will. It will take only a couple of "freudien slips" by FOX commentators saying "raise taxes" instead of "raise the cap" for someone dumb person to say, "i am against raising taxes".

Say "Lift the Cap". It will require some explaining by Repubs to confuse people that it is a tax raise and we know how well people listen to explanations.

Now the word "Lift" is often associated by with civil rights and freedom. As in "Lift the ban" It is a positive word where as "raise" is often negative.

[LunaC]

32. You're right! Good point!

It's all in the semantics.

[Walt Starr]

33. NO! Don't use "Lift" Say, "REMOVE THE CAP!" n/t

[qwghlmian]

20. What the "raise the cap" proponents don't seem to realize

is that the more you pay into Social Security, the more you get when you retire. So if you raise the cap, you get more $ in, but you also pay out more. How exactly is this going to help?

Yes, you remove the cap, you get more from Bill Gates, but when he retires you will have to start paying him $50,000/month Social Security payments.

[Rosco T.]

21. And your point is???

so what. some people get way more out than they put in already. My MIL is on total disability (Alzheimers) and gets $2,000/mo and will for the rest of her life.. she never earned more than $40,000 year.

[qwghlmian]

24. My point is - you lift the cap,

you do not help Social Security. In fact, you may even break it faster, since those to whom you will be paying huge benefits will be the ones who live longer.

[TR Fan]

25. The point is, I believe,...

regarding specifically retirement benefits and how the amount the retiree receives monthly is calculated. The amount you receive monthly is calculated from the amount you have paid in. If you raise the cap, an individual making, say $200K will pay in significantly more (in actual dollars) than someone making $89K. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that he/she will receive monthly payments that are more than someone making $89K. This scheme would give a short term boost to the SS fund, as it would mean additional income for the fund immediately, while deferring the payment of these funds. It would still retain the long-term problems with the system.

If, on the other hand, you want these individuals who are now paying more to receive the same amount they would have if they payed on the first $89K, i.e., raise the payment cap, keep the payout cap, you are violating many of the principles with which SS was originally sold to the public and will find, I think, that many Americans oppose such a scheme.

[BlkDragon]

34. Actually..

SS is bottom weighted. It has a substantial redistributive element which means that if the cap was raised from 90k to 120k, the top earners would not get the same proportion back. Plus, SS benefits are taxed and the tax accrued goes back into the fund. So high wage earning retirees will be taxed at 36% or whatever there wage is.

If the cap was raised to 120k-140k, SS would be solvent for 100 years.

On a side note, the elephant in the room is the redistributive element. No one talks about this. If private accounts goes through, this element will be eliminated.

[Contrary1]

22. I don't usually push my own posts...

but I got this little email yesterday from Ken Mehlman. We should let our senators know what we think.
If nothing else, it will screw up the repub's petition. Take a look at it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1563277&mesg_id=1563277

[trogdor]

27. Visited, complied, and nominated.

Excellent idea, as long as the address lines actually make it to the Senators, and not just gop.com's mailing lists. I would recommend not using real names, either. A pseudonym like "George Is Smokingcrack" would do nicely.

[Patchuli]

29. He's threatening our retirement security`

in 'favor of younger workers?!' What the heck??? How about those of us who are not yet 55 who've paid in for 30 years? We're just supposed to lump it in favor of younger workers after we've worked to support the generation before us? It is the math; SS is healthy as long as * keeps his mitts off it! Why doesn't he focus on fixing what he's screwed up instead?! I guess if you are 50, you are left to dangle in the wind. I do not think so. It's obvious that the health of SS is not his concern but how to squander it.

"Bush has tried to soothe the fears of the elderly that their retirement benefits might be jeopardized. He has pledged that those age 55 and over would be shielded from any changes to the current Social Security system.


"If you're retired or near retirement, you don't have a thing to worry about," the president said."

Politics - Reuters


Bush Acknowledges Tough Fight on Social Security

Fri Feb 4,12:22 AM ET Politics - Reuters


By Caren Bohan

GREAT FALLS, Mont. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) warned on Thursday that retirement benefits for younger workers were at risk and conceded he faced a battle in Congress to win over skeptics of his plan to remake the 70-year-old Social Security (news - web sites) system.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=716&e=13&u=/nm/20050204/pl_nm/bush_dc

[Contrary1]

30. Shrubian Slip???

"Bush has tried to soothe the fears of the elderly that their retirement benefits might be jeopardized. He has pledged that those age 55 and over would be shielded from any changes to the current Social Security system."

If Bush's plan is voluntary, what "changes" would it be necessary to be shielded from?

[Patchuli]

31. His own words betray his agenda

If one has to be "shielded" it is pretty obvious what he's proposing is not a good thing.

I honestly don't think he's going to get anywhere with this one. SS has always been called the 'Third Rail" in politics and other presidents, ones that were much more popular than * have not dared to touch SS. It's going to be his downfall if he keeps pushing it.
Of course, the quagmire in Iraq should have already done him in politically so who knows?

I have to laugh about his trip to the people (handpicked Bushies) to convince them of the necessity to do this. Those sheeple back anything the Shrub says anywhere. It's those of us with half a brain he's not going to sell on it.