 |
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
#41
10-10-2009, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are. 
|
|
#42
10-12-2009, 09:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 How could it be worse than gone completely? But it is! It's a minus! Yikes. Interestingly, even the evil Clinton gang agreed that some sort of private option is the only thing that would save ss. There is a report at either the ss or WH website, I sadly don't have the time to find it, I think Shalala has something to do with it. Pete
__________________
"America is still a land of promise, especially during a political campaign."
|
|
#43
10-12-2009, 10:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I found it:
(snip) In the past, efforts to deal with Social Security's financial difficulties have generally featured cutting benefits and raising tax rates on a pay-as-you-go basis. All Council members agree that the pay-as-you-go approach should be changed. But despite its best efforts, the Council was not able to agree on one single plan for dealing with Social Security's financial difficulties. Rather, Council members expressed interest in three different approaches to restoring financial solvency and improving money's worth returns. One group of members favors an approach, labeled the Maintenance of Benefits (MB) plan, that involves an increase in income taxes on Social Security benefits, a redirection to the OASDI funds beginning in 2010 of the part of the revenue from taxes on OASDI benefits now going to the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund, coverage of newly hired State and local government workers not currently covered by Social Security, a payroll tax increase in 2045, and serious consideration of a plan allowing the Government to begin investing a portion of trust fund assets directly in common stocks indexed to the broad market. Historically, returns on equities have exceeded those on Government bonds (where all Social Security funds are now invested). If this equity premium persists, it would be possible to maintain Social Security benefits for all income groups of workers, greatly improving the money's worth for younger workers, without incurring the risks that could accompany individual investment3 . Another group of members supports an approach, labeled the Individual Accounts (IA) plan, that creates individual accounts alongside the Social Security system. This plan involves an increase in the income taxation of benefits (though not the redirection of HI funds), State and local coverage, an acceleration of the already-scheduled increase in the age of eligibility for full benefits up to year 2011 and then an automatic increase in that age tied to longevity, a reduction in the growth of future Social Security benefits is structured to affect middle- and high-wage workers the most, and an increase in employees' mandatory contribution to Social Security of 1.6 percent of covered payroll, which would be allocated to individual defined contribution accounts. These individual accounts would be held by the Government but with constrained investment choices available to individuals. If individuals were to devote the same share of their IA funds to equities as they now do for their 401(k) private pension funds, the combination of the annuity income attributable to their individual accounts and their scaled-back Social Security benefits would on average yield essentially the same benefits as promised under the current system for all income groups. A third group of members favors an approach, labeled the Personal Security Accounts (PSA) plan, that creates even larger, fully-funded individual accounts which would replace a portion of Social Security. Under this plan, workers would direct 5 percentage points of the current payroll tax into a PSA, which would be managed privately and could be invested in a range of financial instruments. The balance of the payroll tax would go to fund a modified retirement program and modified disability and survivor benefits. When fully phased in, the modified retirement program would offer all full-career workers a flat dollar benefit (the equivalent of $410 monthly in 1996, the amount being automatically increased to reflect increases in national average wages prior to retirement) plus the proceeds of their PSAs. This plan also would involve a change in benefit taxation, State and local coverage, an acceleration of the already-scheduled increase from 65 to 67 in the age of eligibility for full retirement benefits, with the age increased in future years to reflect increases in longevity, a gradual increase from 62 to 65 in the age of eligibility for early retirement benefits (although workers could begin withdrawing the proceeds of their PSAs at 62), a reduction in future benefits for disabled workers, a reduction in benefits for women who never worked outside the home, and an increase in benefits for many elderly widows. If individuals allocated the assets in their PSAs in the same proportion as they do for their 401(k) private pension plans, the combination of the flat benefit payment and the income from their PSAs would, on average, exceed the benefits promised under the current system for all income groups. There would be a cost associated with the transition to this new system equivalent to 1.52 percent of payroll for 72 years. This transition cost would be met through a combination of increased tax revenues and additional borrowing from the public. All of these approaches have in common that they seek to achieve more advance funding of Social Security's long-term obligations. They would also result in a higher level of national saving for retirement, although the impact on the nation's overall retirement saving would differ under the plans. The two individual account plans would raise overall retirement and national saving much more than the MB plan in the early years of the forecast horizon through the mandatory contributions of the IA plan or the transition tax of the PSA plan. These two plans are then likely to generate higher national income in the 21st century. While each of the proposals would increase investment in the stock market, one approach invests new Social Security funds directly into equities to realize a higher rate of return; another approach adds additional, mandatory saving on top of a scaled-back version of the existing benefit system; and the third approach moves from the current pay-as-you-go, largely unfunded system to one in which future benefits are more than 50 percent funded through PSAs. Each of these plans has different potential to create real wealth for retirement and provides for different ownership of that wealth. And each involves a very different vision for the future evolution of the U.S. retirement system. (endsnip) http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/a...s.htm#overview Pete
__________________
"America is still a land of promise, especially during a political campaign."
|
|
#44
10-12-2009, 11:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Take care, Ed
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.
|
|
#45
10-12-2009, 12:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt Last edited by merrylander; 10-12-2009 at 02:24 PM.
|
|
#46
10-12-2009, 12:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The lobbying business is a real problem. In fact, much bigger than most folks give credit for. I guess I didn't realize foregin countries had our elected representatives ears more than we do. That's just crazy. And and another example of "the machine". And I'm sure when they do something for some foregin power they have some logical reason why it's good for *us* not just *them*. And I'm sure lots of folks listen and say "that makes sense to me!"
__________________
Two days slow. That's what they are.
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.