It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Bush Moves to Privatize Social Security

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
President Bush appears to be promoting an aggressive second term agenda has now set his sights on Social Security. An idea previously shelved, is being prepared for a second try. The idea is to privatize some of the social security earnings in personal accounts similar to the currently popular 401(k). The plan would divert 2 percent of a workers payrole tax into these accounts. The remainder, 4.2 percent, would go into the fund. Such a move would trigger a shortfall down the road of 2 Trillion dollars. The plan would also peg any increases to inflation and not wage growth. It does not address the shortfall.

 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - Fresh from re-election, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious proposal to overhaul Social Security, a controversial idea that had been shelved because of politics and the administration's focus on tax cuts and terrorism

Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts, similar to 401(k) plans, that would be voluntary for younger workers.

A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 to divert 2 percent of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2 percent and the payroll taxes employers pay would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves an estimated shortfall of about $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for current retirees.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



It is an interesting concept and would be popular with the younger generation. However, as I am fully vested in the system, I would benefit the most from this if it applies to me. Paying for it is another thing all together. As the article points out, the tax breaks combined with the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, I dont know how big of a deficit we can get before the bottom falls out. My greatest fear is that my wife and I have been diligent in saving into our 403 (b)s and Roths. Will we be penalized down the road by reduced benefits to pay for those who spent all theirs?

Related News Links:
www.whitehouse.gov
www.pueblo.gsa.gov
www.washingtonpost.com
story.news.yahoo.com

[edit on 11/10/04 by FredT]




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
At first glance I like the idea, since I'm young and would like to have my hand in where my SS money goes. Now, I don't know if this is the correct time for implimenting such a plan. Talking to a few of my professors near the age for drawing SS has them a bit worried....they've worked their whole lives and what if the SS system falls short on something indiduals are relying on. Interesting stuff....

Cameron



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
This is interesting, usually(from what I've read) presidents have been afraid to even bring up social security and "privatisation" Out of fear of loosing the senior vote.

Doesn't this leave SS under the mercy of how good/bad a company is doing? if the company with the SS accounts goes under or hits bad times(every company does at some point) then surely this isn't a great idea. At least with public welfare you generally know that your likely to still be able to get at your money
I'm probally completly wrong tho,I've not read much into the US Social system



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
you have this privateazation and the whole bush wanting to make all the illegal aliens legal. wouldn't that add a whole heck of alot of $$ to the s.s. sytem?? maybe thats why he wants to make all those illegals legal.......



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Well, from what I know, the indvidual has a hand in where that privitized money goes...that's most of the theory. The individual should have the right to say where and how their SS money goes. Remember, this will only account for 2% or so, still a TON of money that we're diverting out of the hands of people currently receiving a SS check.

It's got its pros and cons....depends on perspective.

With reference to Bush, now that he's in office for another 4 years he'll be doing and fulfilling his real goals full bore since he doesn't have be cautious for a re-election anymore.

Cameron



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   
We need to know exactly what Mr. Bush is planning young people starting in the work force will may benefit better in this adventure that the older generation with more than have invested more than half of their working years in it.

Now the people that received social security rigth now will lose if this include them.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
YES! PLEASE!

Taxation without representation! Give me my money. You can have all the money you stole from me to date, just STOP STEALING MY MONEY!

YAY! One thing ABSOLUTELY that I back Bush on.

NO MORE SOCIAL SECURITY!



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
www.socialsecurity.org... - good stuff on the homepage.

www.socialsecurity.org...

The president said that he understood the problems involved in financing the transition, but noted that "the cost of doing nothing... is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today."

...

"We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved; it is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning somethingfrom ownership."


Their achive has some good briefs as well...

Cameron



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I'm w/ you, Val.

This was a campaign promise from 00, and I am glad Bush is following through on it.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Sure, spend another 2 trillion, we can afford that! More tax cuts!

Here's what it looks like: $2,000,000,000,000



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The plan would divert 2 percent of a workers parole tax into these accounts. The remainder, 4.2 percent, would go into the fund. Such a move would trigger a shortfall down the road of 2 Trillion dollars. The plan would also peg any increases to inflation and not wage growth. It does not address the shortfall.

FredT

I think you meant payroll tax, not parole tax, even though it sometimes it seems we are in our own private mortgage prison.


I'm all for it. We need to start somewhere.




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think you meant payroll tax, not parole tax, even though it sometimes it seems we are in our own private mortgage prison.


Sorry my bad
But man it always seems like the bank hold me prisoner



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   
You know honestly, this is one idea I like from GW. He is looking beyond his 4 years by adressing this issue. He has been shortsighted on his handling on the war against Terror, but making something new and better in Social Security for future generations is very clear thinking. It will get worse without making a change to it for the better.

So, Mr. President Bush, I will concede, lol. Well at least this one point, good thinking Mr. President.

-ADHDsux4me



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join