The Social Security discussion

Written by Prometheus 6
Published December 05, 2004
page 1 | 2

Equity Index funds pay off
Why Most Stock Investors are Losers
The Courage of Misguided Convictions: The Trading Behavior of Individual Investors
The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors

Most investors will NOT become wealthy because most investors do not now. And when the market pendulum swings the other way a great number of investors will be in trouble.

The best solution I can come up with for the problem I'd like to see solved is a means tested pay as you go approach. (And ferchrissakes, don't call it "paygo." I swear, between acronyms and neologisms, in 100 years archaeologists will have quite a spirited debate over whether we actually speak English or if it's just a trade language.) Back in February the NY Times noted

Since 1983, American workers have been paying more into Social Security than it has paid out in benefits, about $1.8 trillion more so far. This year Americans will pay about 50 percent more in Social Security taxes than the government will pay out in benefits.

Those taxes were imposed at the urging of Mr. Greenspan, who was chairman of a bipartisan commission that in 1983 said that one way to make sure Social Security remains solvent once the baby boomers reached retirement age was to tax them in advance.

On Mr. Greenspan's recommendation Social Security was converted from a pay-as-you-go system to one in which taxes are collected in advance. After Congress adopted the plan, Mr. Greenspan rose to become chairman of the Federal Reserve.


Those funds were used for day-to-day expenses. In other words, we always had a pay-as-you-go system.
In June 2001, Paul H. O'Neill, President Bush's first Treasury secretary, said all that Americans expecting benefits have is "someone else's promise'' that the paper held by the Social Security Trust Fund will be redeemed with taxes paid later by others.

It was promised the funds would secure our retirement but not action, no commitment…just a message sent. It's much like the way the "equal" part of "separate but equal" was dealt with.

If those funds had not been tapped we would not be having this discussion. And no single thing will undo the damage.

David Brooks is right about one thing: those who can fund their own retirement, should. And the National Center for Public Policy has some thoughts on how to improve 401(K)s that is a good starting point to helping more folks do that. But any Social Security plan that requires a 401(K) of any significance to reach a living retirement income will come up short for a vast segment of society.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
The Social Security discussion
Published: December 05, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Prometheus 6
Prometheus 6's BC Writer page
Prometheus 6's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Prometheus 6
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — December 6, 2004 @ 08:46AM — Eric Olsen

P6, very fine post and I pretty much agree with you: some sure things need to remain sure things despite the temptation to "improve them" by making them less certain.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/22922)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments