PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Senator Introduces Bill To "Expand Its Solvency"



KC
11-16-2012, 08:37 PM
A friend of mine posted this on his Facebook. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1208701/democratic-senator-introduces-bill-to-lift-social-securitys-tax-cap-extend-its-solvency-for-decades/?mobile=nc

The Begich bill would lift the current payroll tax cap, which exempts wages in excess of a certain amount ($110,100 this year) from the tax. In turn, it would give high earners, who would pay more, additional benefits upon retirement, just as benefits increase as wages do for workers below the cap. […] It also increases benefits across-the-board. While Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin adopt a stingier “chained CPI” measure for inflation, Begich adopts “CPI-E,” or a measure that specifically captures inflation in goods that seniors buy. Due to deteriorated health and other considerations, goods seniors buy tend to be more expensive than those younger people purchase. Begich’s CPI-E change would mean, effectively, a 4.5 percent benefit increase for the program’s beneficiaries, including not just seniors but their designated survivors and disabled Americans as well.
Personally, I think that we should gradually move toward privatization of Social Security retirement savings, starting with allowing young people to privately invest now and doing other things, like raising the retirement age and gradually phasing it out, but I realize that those aren't attractive to folks in Washington. Any thoughts on the Senator's solution?

Deadwood
11-16-2012, 09:04 PM
A friend of mine posted this on his Facebook. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/16/1208701/democratic-senator-introduces-bill-to-lift-social-securitys-tax-cap-extend-its-solvency-for-decades/?mobile=nc Personally, I think that we should gradually move toward privatization of Social Security retirement savings, starting with allowing young people to privately invest now and doing other things, like raising the retirement age and gradually phasing it out, but I realize that those aren't attractive to folks in Washington. Any thoughts on the Senator's solution?


Voluntary?

Won't work. It has been demonstrated that unless mandated people will not invest in their own retirement.

Both the US and Canada should allow the mandated funds to be used in a free enterprise style. Most Americans would have three to five times as much if what they"invested" through the mandate were allow to accrue naturally.

KC
11-16-2012, 09:10 PM
Voluntary?

Won't work. It has been demonstrated that unless mandated people will not invest in their own retirement.

Both the US and Canada should allow the mandated funds to be used in a free enterprise style. Most Americans would have three to five times as much if what they"invested" through the mandate were allow to accrue naturally.

Sure a lot of people wouldn't save. But my feeling is that people should have the option to not contribute if they are going to invest. Ultimately I'd rather let individuals handle it themselves, or leave managing retirement to states. The Federal government has no business providing retirement benefits to any one but its own employees.

Peter1469
11-17-2012, 07:27 AM
I would like a privatized system. But if the question is about saving social security, we need to raise the collection age over time and we need to phase out benefits for wealthy people. We also need to prohibit Congress from touching that money. Their IOUs aren't worth much these days.