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?
- In Trump’s America, is the Supreme Court still seen as legitimate?
- The Republican Plan to Repeal Obamacare for Everybody But Alaska Might Be Unconstitutional
- Parliament Square in London Is Closer to Having First Female Statue
- Battle Over Confederate Monuments Moves to the Cemeteries
- German WW1 U-boat found off Belgian coast
- Yale history department now emphasizing global history in undergraduate courses
- University of Utah appoints first Mormon Studies professor
- Eric Foner discusses the manipulation of history
- Male historian tapped to lead Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Kansas
- Decline in History Majors Continues, Departments Respond