From the likely chairman of the Ways and Means Committee if the Republicans control the House of Representatives after the election:
I support voluntary personal accounts for younger workers that would allow them to build a nest egg for retirement that they would own and control, and could pass on to their families. This will permanently strengthen Social Security, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers. Inheritance rights in personal accounts would especially help widows who depend on Social Security and eliminate the need for cumbersome regulations that too often deny individuals from receiving their benefits in a timely fashion.
Note that he is only talking about voluntary private accounts. Of greater importance, he is dead set against increasing any tax and quite open to cutting future benefits, presumably using the presumably using the voluntary accounts as a cover.
7 comments:
"From the likely chairman of the Ways and Means Committee if the Republicans control the House of Representatives after the election"
S/B
From the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee when the Republicans control the House of Representatives after the election.
Sorry, Anon 1, there is no guarantee that Camp is the Chairman even if/when the GOP wins control of the House, in January. He is likely to have challengers.
"He is likely to have challengers."
I'll give you that, but if you think that the Republicans aren't going to take over the House, you must be smoking something.
I find it interesting that whenever "personal accounts" come up, there is never a discussion of how Disability fits in the picture, better not get sick
Also isn't the younger healthy workers who are paying the taxes which provide for those on claim now? If those funds are directed to a personal account then who funds the current beneficiaries?
Good point; if the current contributors divert money to individual IRAs, then SSA will have to rely more on IOUs - which will necessitate higher taxes on? Probalby those with money to pay, ie the current contributors. Ouch!
When Social Security dips into the trust fund, it is the same "exercise" as spending for any otherr expenditure. The only difference is that no apprpopriation is needed, as long as the trust fund has a "Fund Balance with the Treasury."
If Social Security is an insurance/pension plan, why isn't it funded and maintained like one?
The trust fund does not make it any easier for government to pay future beneficiaries. What kind of plan do you call that?
Don Levit
Post a Comment