OMFG! A First! Bush may make a proposal I DON'T disagree with!

[UdoKier]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_4

He may raise the present $90K threshold on Social Security taxes.

I disagree with every other part of his "plan" but the regressivity of the Social Security tax has always bugged me.


Of course, from a budgetary standpoint, it doesn't NEED to be raised for another 20 years or so, and his real motivation may be just to help shore up the flood of red ink in the general budget that HE and his fellow thugs caused...

[Emboldened Chimp]

1. I'm worried that he's vying for a compromise...

...that will still put a portion of SS into private accounts.

[Demit]

6. I agree. He'll "reluctantly" include that (since it's the most sensible

and painless thing to do) but he'll slide through something dreadful along with it. This is a game to him.

[BanzaiBonnie]

10. Please check this out

If we decided as a society that we were going to put $2,000 a year into a savings account from the day each child was born until he or she reaches age 18 — and if we assume a 6% annual interest rate — each child would have $65,520 at age 18. (The worst return for a 25-year investor in the stock market from 1929 before the crash to 2004 was an average of 6% a year.) With no further contributions, again with a 6% interest rate, those savings would grow to $1,013,326 at age 65.

If we began to do this now, the first-year cost would be $8 billion; that is $2,000 times the roughly 4 million children born each year. The second year would cost $16 billion and so on until we were contributing $2,000 per year to a savings account for every child from birth until age 18. When fully implemented, the cost would be $144 billion per year. To put this $144 billion per year into context, this year's combined spending for Social Security and Medicare will exceed $750 billion.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oneill15feb15.story



I think it will make both parties uncomfortable, but may have some promise for being a real solution. This plan was put forward by former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill who is no fan of * .

[cthrumatrix]

2. he has to raise taxes for this and other govt needs --- watch Rove work

this will be done very "smoothly"

Like it's not his and others faults for spending OUR soc sec SURPLUS!

[Soopercali]

3. No, no!

He's faking left and throwing right. It will NEVER happen.

[Snotcicles]

4. I think it should double after 90K you heard that here first. n/t

[tcoursen]

7. why double at 90K

I could see doubling it at say 200K, or maybe even 150K, but not at 90K.

That seems to be unfair to the people making in the 90 to say 120 range.

[Snotcicles]

18. Ok rate and a half at 100k and double at 200k hows that

[RobertSeattle]

5. But it will RAISE based on inflation anyway automatically.

Depends on how much MORE than inflation.

[RobertSeattle]

8. Anyone find an exact transcript of what was said?

Here's the release from the Portmouth event but I don't see anything specific to raising the 90K threshold.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050216-3.html

[Kadie]

20. "Just because he said it was an option doesn't mean he embraced it,"

snip...
Asked directly, Bush said he would not bar raising the $90,000 cap, although he does not want to see the payroll tax rate go up.


"The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate. And all the other issues go on the table," Bush said in the interview, according to an account in Wednesday's New Haven (Conn.) Register.


White House spokesman Trent Duffy said raising the cap on Social Security taxes is just one option among many being advocated.


"Just because he said it was an option doesn't mean he embraced it," Duffy added.

more...
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/02/16/national/w095906S99.DTL


I love this....

snip...
"Investors aren't just Wall Street people, as far as I'm concerned," Bush told the crowd invited by the state's all-GOP congressional delegation. "I think every citizen, every citizen has got the capacity to manage his or her own money."

[jdj]

23. if previous behavior is any indication, this means that he is going

to raise the payroll tax rate.

[retnavyliberal]

26. especially those 3 minimum wage job holders

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. This shows he knows he is losing this fight

he knows damn well there was no emergency, and now he is getting pressure from a solid wall of Dems, and even some Republicans.
The game here is to pretend that something needs to be done, and come down to this as the proposed solution, and then not go ahead with it because it will be so unpopular amongst his base of support (the rich).
I see this as backpedaling.

[flordehinojos]

11. Bush does not need retirement money as we all know... buth our Senators,

none of them pay into the SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS FUND. They pay into some RETIREMENT FUND FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES ... so SOCIAL SECURITY MEANS NOTHING PERSONALLY TO THEM ... plus, they make so much money, they too would probably not need social security benefits on their retirement......that is, in my very humble opinion, why they are so willing to gamble with the lives and retirement benefits of so many.

[UdoKier]

15. Actually, senators DO pay into SSI - that's an RW urban legend

From Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

[flordehinojos]

21. but as i understand it, SSI is Disability Income Insurance, Not Retirement

Income Insurance so ... unless they become disabled they wouldn't qualify for collecting SSI ... and even then ... if their pensions are high enough (above a certain income level) they would never qualify for SSI .... BUT... IT IS GOOD THAT THEY PAY INTO IT. In the ups and downs of life... one never knows if anyone of them would one day have to make use of it.

[UdoKier]

27. Sorry, I meant social security

But just the same...

[EC]

12. I'll bet anything IT'S A PLOY.....

when I heard it on AAR, they said he doesn't want to...that's what people say, when they aren't going to , they're just trying to force a hand...

[rox63]

13. Just watch

He's evil. He'll probably only agree to do this if it's part of some sort of privatization scam.

I never thought I could despise someone as much as I do *. :grr: :mad:

[txaslftist]

14. Even a blind pig stumbles across a truffle once in a while...

don't get used to it.

[BigBearJohn]

16. Uh-oh. What's he up to?

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. It is in my nature to be a contrarian

Social Security is intended to do two things;
1) Guarantee a minimum retirement pension so that retirees have a minimum level of dignity in their old age, and
2) Guarantee disability income for people who are unable to work, or if they die, for their dependents.

The "premium" for this insurance coverage is a tax shared between employee and employer. A certain level of premium entitles the worker a certain level of retirement income. At $90,000 per year, the retirement income that the premium entitles the worker to is considered ample, and thus above the system's mission.

So, IN MY VIEW, lifting the cap means one of three things;
1) IF the benefit schedule is expanded upwards to provide commensurate benefits to high income SS tax payers, then Social security is now for something more than minimum sustenance to avoid poverty. On the other hand,
2) if the benefit schedule remains as it is, so that a retiree who earned $200,000 gets the same benefit as a retiree who earned $90,000 as a worker, then it's not insurance anymore. At that point it becomes partially a wealth redistribution system (welfare).
3) benefits are still cut, but the excess revenues remain available to pay for tax cuts and wars.

My feeling is that Bush is doing whatever it takes to avoid the need to tax capital. A wealthy worker is still a worker and thus a better
Republican target for taxes than an investor or a corporation.

Not that there's anything inherently bad with the wealth redistribution, but it opens a can of worms that Social Security has thus far avoided, and is the reason for its popularity. I think you only raise the cap if there's a demonstrated crisis. At likely levels of GDP growth, the Social Security System has ample resources to pay benefits for everyone alive today, and predicting the economy beyond that timeframe is not useful.

Our grandkids will die in the next ice age anyway.

http://bulletpoint.blogspot.com/2005/02/17-trillion-in-unclaimed-property.html

* edited for organization *

[spanone]

17. Read His Lips.....NO NEW TAXES

[KamaAina]

19. That's no more Bush**'s proposal than the Dept. of Homeland Security

he stole that one from Joe Lieberman. He stole raising the SS threshold from Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who proposed just that several weeks ago.

Funny, when Clinton did anything like that, the lib'rul MSM was all over him calling it "triangulation". What do we call it when Bush** does it? "Triangulamafacation"?

[Johonny]

22. I think

the private accounts will come outside of SS. I think there is support among congress for a 401 K type account that deals with non-SS money. A raise in the ceiling (I assume some type of cap is also going to be included) with yet another new tax differing account seems like the likely compromise. Of course I think if both pass the net effect will be zero to the budget, since takes out as one takes in. This type of plan could actually help the middle class... I think.

[Xithras]

24. Doesn't matter to him, because the truly wealthy pay no payroll taxes.

Guys like Bush, Trump, Gates, and the rest of Americas ultra-wealthy are members of the investor class. When they do their taxes every year, they have no payroll to report and as a result don't have to pay a dime into SS. Their income is limited to dividends from their investments which are exempted from SS taxes.

The fundamental problem with taxation in the US is that it's based on income, and not wealth. I can be worth a billion dollars in stocks and land, but if I don't cash any out for a year, I'll have no income and pay no income taxes as a result. If my investments double in value from one billion to two in a single year, I still have no "income" unless I cash it out, and pay no taxes as a result. That's wrong.

[librechik]

25. Steals OUR solution and claims it as his own.

again.

When he first rolled out this product, raising the poll tax was NOT on the table. Cutting benefits was.

[Cleita]

28. You can be sure there are strings attached. It looks to me

like it's more for him and his Wall Street enablers to steal. I'm certain none of it will go for old people.

[KharmaTrain]

30. Tax Hike '08 On The Way

It's not as though many of us aren't already paying higher local and state taxes thanks to the billions that used to go to schools, health and other services and into the pockets of the corporates and the rich. But there's no way with this rising debt that the economy can continue to hemorage red ink without something being done...like raising both interest rates and taxes.

There'll come a time soon when the Japanese, Chinese and the MANY American banks and investor groups will force Greenspan's hand and interest rates will start going up by 1/2 point instead of 1/4 points each quarter.

Right now we have the ingredients that led to the massive inflation of the late 70's...a huge defecit, war, corporate and personal debts, rising oil prices that are outpacing GDP. If you're thinking of re-financing or buying a house...do it now, you may not be able to afford to for several years.

The real pisser is, if this regime is forced to raise taxes, they'll wait until the '08 election picture shapes up. If Jebbie or some other GOOP looks like they would or could steal a win, the tax hike comes AFTER the election despite them saying they won't need to...or blame it on Democrats as a ploy to put the blame of their profiteering on the Democrats.