Social Security "Reform" Fraud
From the Washington Post:
"Under the proposal, workers could invest as much as 4 percent of their wages subject to Social Security taxation in a limited assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds. But the government would keep and administer that money. Upon retirement, workers would then be given any money that exceeded inflation-adjusted gains over 3 percent."
And from the New York Times:
"The personal accounts would be administered by the government; private companies would manage the investment funds under contract with the government."
"When workers retired, most would be required to use at least part of their accounts to buy from the government lifetime annuities...." (All emphasis added.)
The key word here is government.
Oh, one more thing. This is Bush's opening position. It hasn't gone through the congressional compromise mill yet.
comments powered by Disqus
Jonathan Dresner - 2/3/2005
And how is that not raising payroll taxes? I'm not saying it's a bad idea (though the cap should be the same as the benefits cap, or something like that), but it's certainly not consistent with "the rules".
Gary McGath - 2/3/2005
Note also: "A _limited_ assortment of stock, bond and mixed-investment funds." In other words, funds meeting government criteria. This would provide a new opportunity to control funds by withholding eligibility for social security money.
Sheldon Richman - 2/3/2005
One idea that is on the table is raising or scrapping the income cap for the payroll tax. Great.
Jonathan Dresner - 2/3/2005
Who needs details? The speech itself included glaring contradictions: how you own the money, but it gets dribbled out to you in a government-set formula; how the money will come out of payroll taxes but that increasing payroll taxes is non-negotiable in the social security "reform" discussion; for that matter, how "all ideas are on the table" but private accounts are a separate proposal to be taken out of the context of other social security ideas.
Not that you're wrong, of course: quite the contrary. But why bother?
- Rubio Surges Into Second In New Hampshire
- Branstad Says Cruz Ran ‘Unethical’ Campaign
- Christie Highlights Santorum’s Endorsement of Rubio
- Portman Comes Out Against Trade Deal
- Megyn Kelly Gets a Book Deal
- A Big List of the Bad Things Clinton Has Done
- An Unambiguous Sign Sanders Won Last Night’s Debate
- Still Friends at the End
- Quote of the Day
- Trump Still Leads as Clinton Slips
- Clinton Can’t Shake Image as Wall Street’s Friend
- Maddow Doesn’t See Sanders Winning
- Why Does the Media Still Shield Chelsea Clinton?
- Bush Jokes His Mother May Have Abused Him
- Rubio Closes the Gap in New Hampshire
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- One of the last remaining Nazis goes on trial in Germany
- Inside story finally told of the young US diplomat who cracked the case of the murder of 4 nuns in El Salvador in 1980
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges
- English professor uses literature to help cure historical amnesia
- WSJ features an article by a conservative calling for the abolition of Black History Month
- Mary Beard, herself a bestselling author, wonders why more women historians aren't