What do you feel should be done about Social Security?

[Dehumanizer]

For one, there is so much noise and so many numbers thrown around that it's hard to know for sure what is going on. And secondly, what should be done about it if anything. I just wanted to get a general consensus of what everyone at DU feels about it. Are there liberals in favor of privatization, if even a different version than Bush's? Do you think it is as easy as raising the cap, and if so, is it fair to the people particularly in the 90-200k range? Should we raise the retirement age and/or reduce benefits? There are so many different ways to go here and similarly so many ways to go wrong. Just wanted to see what everyone feels the one right way is.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Leave it alone

Quit borrowing from it.

[Erika]

2. Do as President Gore said

Make it a lock box.

[Vincardog]

3. Are there liberals in favor of privatization? NO

Do you think it is as easy as raising the cap? YES
no limit And include stock options as well
Should we raise the retirement age and/or reduce benefits? HELL NO

[mrcheerful]

4. Simple, stop government from using it for anything except SS and pay back

everything they stole out of the program since Jr. took over the WH. SS is the only government program that was not only paying for itself but had a surplus every year since it was started. Johnson, a Texan go figure, should have been stopped for using it to fund the Vietnam war. Every prez since has used SS monies for everything from war to just pissing it away on pet projects. There was nothing wrong with SS until the government started taking the funds and writing IOU's.

[librechik]

5. raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation

no more social security shortfall

[Vincardog]

7. And every time Congress raises its' own pay corresponing in min wage

[WCGreen]

6. First of all.....

It needs to be taxed fairly....

People should include the half that the Employer kicks in as income no matter what level...

Let deductions and exemptions shield the poorer people from paying income tax on SS funds...

Then, take the income tax collected via taxing the benifits an use it to shore up the fund...

Also, stop including more than 50% in a filers income just because they have more money...

I don't care how rich or wealthy you are, no one shoul dhave to pay tax on money that is already taxed....

Second, Raise the cap on earned income subject to FICA....

Let it flow up to 150k right now....


On Edit....

But lower the percent from 6.2% to 5.0%...

Giving small business a tax cut and putting money in the hands of the people who will spend it...

Economic stimulation for Small Business and the working poor....

[babylonsister]

8. Perhaps address when cooler heads prevail; not with this bunch. nt

[ProudDad]

9. Increase the cap!!!

Have a modest means test (like if you make over $100,000 -- no soup for you!)!!!

By doing these two we can also lower the percentage.

I don't think we need to make any accomidation for the 100K to 200K range!! That's the top 5% -- they can take care of themselves.

That would take care of the 21st Century and then some.

Make sure that Cost of Living increases are reinstated and maintained... Remove the tax on SS payments.

NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION" NO "PRIVATIZATION"...

[Yupster]

18. Sovial security is already heavily means tested

The payout formula is based on bendpoints which are incredibly progressive.

[Kablooie]

10. Privatize it! Because The Lord God's Bush says so.

[NAO]

11. Increase the Cap. It's that easy. The cap is regressive and unfair.

Saving Social Security really is as easy as raising (or eliminating) the cap. The cap as it stands now is regressive and unfair.

A family making 50,000/yr paying 7% payroll tax pays 3,500. If their living expense is 40,000, that tax represents 35% of their surplus income.

A family making 200,000/yr paying 7% on the first 90,000, and 0% on the remaining 110,000 pays 6,300. That is an overall tax rate of 3.1% -- less than half the rate of the lower income family. Not only that, but if their living cost is 80,000 (double the cost of the other family), then their payroll tax is a meager 5% of their surplus income.

If people don't like a fair tax system (not even a progressive system, just a fair system) they should just leave the USA, and move to some other industrialized country. Ok, on second thought all the industrialized countries have HIGHER, MORE PROGRESSIVE tax systems) so I guess they should move to some third world country.

[Hidden Stillness]

12. Social Security is Just About the Only Program That Works!

Social Security has always had a surplus--always. It has always been available for Republicans from Nixon to Reagan to both Bushs to raid and pay toward the National debt they caused, even though that was/is supposed to be illegal. Changes to the law over the years have only strengthened it. There is no cash problem. Commercializing it or "encouraging people (who have no money) to save" will be the death of the middle class, which is what they want. Republicans hate nothing more than the thought of a government program helping people. Your comment about whether it is "fair to the people particularly in the 90-200k range" to include them in a payment toward an insurance that will be there whenever they need it as soon as they are enrolled, makes no sense. Social Security is a guaranteed amount of money to live on, with progressive/calculated benefits safely there because it is from a pool that we as an entire people contribute to, which no one making minimum wage or similar would ever be able to come up with, even after having spent a lifetime working, not to mention that it is an insurance program for the disabled, for orphaned children of workers, etc., and many other groups who could not provide for themselves. Cutting them off for the sake of corporate/investment/consultant profits--commercializing it--or so that hard, cold rich people can be pleased at their loss, is despicable.

[NAO]

13. Absolutely NO MEANS TESTING on any important government services

If people need it, EVERYONE gets it, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

If a burglar is breaking into your house, it does not matter how much you make. You call the police, and they show up. No asking about insurance, credit cards, or ability to pay.

If a disease is ravaging your body...

Well, which is more important?

Means testing is the way the reactionary right builds the resentment against the poor that fuels their movement. Programs that are not means tested (such as police, fire, military, protection) are not questioned or resented. Anytime you introduce means testing you invite resentment. Anything that EVERYONE needs, like health care, education, etc. should be provided to everyone without means testing.

[NAO]

14. Social (as in opposite of Private)...Security (as in opposite of Risk)

Privatized retirement schemes are the EXACT OPPOSITE of the whole concept of Social Security.

Social Security says, "We are all in this together";

Privatized Schemes say, "Every man for himself".

[Warpy]

15. First, take our overpayments of premiums out of the general fund

because unless that is done, any increase in funding will only keep hiding what the tax cuts to the rich and corporate have done to the financial health of this country.

Second, increase that cap to a million a year and consider phasing it out completely in 5 years. Don't reinstitute it until the whole trust fund has been repaid.

Third, raise WAGES. Raising wages will automatically put more into social security.

[Yupster]

19. Agree Warpy

the surplus must be taken out of congress's reach. Physically put it in bank cd's or somewhere.

If congress has it, it will be spent and congress dosn't have the money to ever pay it back.

[Lib Grrrrl]

16. Lots. And Nothing Bush Would Like, Either!

1. Get rid of the cap, period. You make it, you pay the tax on it. No cap.

2. No reduction in benefits, no raising retirement age. Possibly a provision for those with average incomes over 100K/annum for their working career - no soup for you...those folks just plain don't GET SS benefits. WTF do THEY need them for? They are already rich. Piss on 'em.

3. If there is ANY talk on privatization, then first, pay me BACK everything I have paid into it for my entire working career...plus interest. And everything my employers matched, too. I figure this is money I was promised...the employer match was part of my salary (you didn't think employers were eating it out of the goodness of their hearts, did you?)

So, if I paid $20,000 into SS over the nearly 14 years I have been in the workforce...then my emplyers have matched that, and $40,000 has my name on it...PLUS...
They say you double your money once every seven years in the stock market. That means my money should have quadrupled (that is, doubled twice.)

THEREFORE...I have $160,000 coming from the government. You put $160,000 into my private account, to start me with...to make up what I'd have had, if privatization had been available when I was 18...then we can talk.

NO GODDAMN WAY am I starting out at ZERO, at the age of 35...and some young kid gets to also start at zero at age 18. That shit just ain't fair...he's got a lot of years HE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY IN...and I did....I should get something for all those years.

SO...if the government wants to talk privatization, then, first, they need to give me my $160,000. As I see it, that is rightfully mine. I paid it in...my employer paid it in on my behalf...and the interest I could have earned in 14 years on the stock market, on that money....hey, I'll start with $160,000 thank you kindly...no WAY do I think I should have to start from ZERO at age 35....

[Yupster]

20. Not to pick nits, but

in your example, you wouldn't have put the whole $ 40,000 in the first day. You would have put it in little by little.

The doubling every seven years assumes the whole money has been in 14 years which it wouldn't be.

In your case, half the money would have been in half the time so it would have doubled once in 14 years, though even that's optimistic because after the tech bubble burst the stock market lost almost 50 % of its value and still hasn't recovered, so the doubling each seven years hasn't come close to happening this last seven years.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Raising the cap is necessary...

But no depriving people of SS if they make more money. SS is NOT welfare.

Obviously, no privatization.

[Ignacio Upton]

17. Raise the cap from $90,000 to $120,000 and raise the minimum wage

We should also cut benefits for the super-rich, like Bill Gates or Paris Hilton, but that's about it. NO means testing, NO indexing benefits to prices, and absolutely NO diversion of benefits to private accounts.

[DuaneBidoux]

29. Why stop at $120,000? They've had enough breaks lately.

[Yupster]

21. My plan -- two items

1) Eliminate the income cap. Republican office-holders would have to sell this to their base.

2) Force workers who are not currently in social security back into the system. The largest group is most public school teachers in 14 states including the two biggest states of California and Texas. Democratic office-holders would have to sell this to their base.

Each side has to give something up. That's the basis for a solution.

[sendero]

22. I'll tell you what..

... anyone claiming to have the slightest idea what the economy will be like 10 years from now, much less 20, 30, 40 etc, is telling a bad joke of the highest order.

The best thing that could be done for SS is to stop deficit spending now. And the shiesskopfs in the white house know it too. They're just not going to do anything about it.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. Easy. Make * and Congress return the money to SS that they

misappropriated/embezzled to buy the war in Iraq and the ill-advised tax cuts for the rich. Then leave it alone to take care of those who paid into it (retirees and the disabled).

[Yupster]

25. And where will Bush and Congress ger those

hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars from to repay the trust fund?

They're not exactly awash with money each month from the surplus.

[Lib Grrrrl]

26. Easy.

Get rid of the tax cuts that benefit only the already-wealthy. That's where they get the money.

[laugle]

27. Increase the $90,000 cap rate to $150,000 or more and make the

wealthy pay their fair share!!

[DuaneBidoux]

28. Solution is completely simple

Lift cap on taxes to make all income levels pay social security taxes(one only pays up to about $100,000 now after which there are no more ss taxes. Second, means test so that people in the middle upper and upper classes either don't get any or get reduced amount depending. These two things ALONE analysis has shown will completely solve the ss "problem" from now through "eternity."

[Stinky The Clown]

30. Off with the caps .... end of story

Stop coddling the rich.