Quote:
Originally Posted by flacaltenn
Seems like I care more about the original promise and INTENT of Soc Sec than YOU do D-Ray..
Gotta follow this assertion carefully D-Ray - otherwise you're gonna think I just took a swipe at you.. The social MAGIC of Soc Sec was that it was a UNIVERSAL program that would benefit ALL surviving retirees. That it was gonna be an insurance program that EVERY US worker would appreciate. Promises were made that would NEVER exceed 3% of payroll income, never apply to more than XX% of your wages (can't remember the promise there) and would NEVER be taxed.. It wasn't JUST a tax -- Oh no -- it was personal investment in YOUR future and it was backed by the full faith/credit of the treasury..
ALL THAT bleeding heart crap goes downs the tube when you start RAISING the contribution cap to stratospheric heights. (or means-testing, or more progressive benefit schedule). You turn a sacred UNIVERSAL FED program into just another redistributionist welfare scheme.. It's ALREADY a progressive benefits schedule because ROI goes negative for most ALL participants except those who make less than about $30K/year.
Now heck -- that MIGHT not be a bad idea considering how many pledges and trusts have been broken on this UNIVERSAL plan in just 70 years or so. But if you turn it into something else NOW -- don't ever expect to fool the American people into ANOTHER UNIVERSAL something in the next couple generations..
I might even support calling it redistributionist welfare.. Just don't think I (or my prodgeny) are gonna get fooled again anytime soon... And that may be why you don't understand why you just can't impeach that silly 2% of the rich. Why the 98% don't just TAKE IT from them.. Because D-Ray buddy -- it's not about the money... It's about the principle of ethically running a UNIVERSAL program and being conscientious administrators of public trust in that program...
|
I think we are looking at the same issue and describing it differently. Social security contributions were to be held in trust to fund the plan. Instead, the trust fund has become a kitty into which we slip IOU's to fund other things like health care programs, military expenditures, tax cuts, homeland security, weapons systems, oil subsidies, agricultural subsidies, prescription drug programs, education programs. Ultimately the FICA contributions became part of the general budget.
Now that the fully funded Social Social security program is going to need some of those IOU's paid off, we suddenly have an entitlement crisis. Social Security has become a target for cuts because there is not enough money to pay the IOU's. In essence, then, the FICA contributions have been converted into an income tax - and a regressive one at that. Those bottom fifty percent that the right likes to highlight have been paying into Social Security just like everyone else. Therefore, it is BS to say that the well-to-do don't get a hefty tax break every time their income exceeds $106K.
Regards,
D-Ray