Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: '04 C 320, '07 SLK 280
Location: Yukon, OK
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The SS issue, let's follow the money.
Under the administration's proposal for Social Security reform, which includes "personal accounts", has anybody wondered what will happen to the EMPLOYER'S share of the SS "tax?" Well, we dug it out of the NY Times site today. The employers will not pay any matching percentage as to any part of the SS "tax" that the employees could have paid into a "personal account." In other words, the proposed SS reform is nothing more than a tax cut for employer/corporations. The administration has admitted that this proposal WILL NOT solve the looming deficit faced by SS, but will only worsen it.
Make no mistake, I am all in favor of personal investment for retirement. The only reason I am able to enjoy retirement today is because of my IRA investments made BEFORE our President's father eliminated the IRA tax benefit for many workers! But the administration's proposal seems to only weaken future SS benefits, without providing any offsetting benefits to workers --- only a "tax" cut for corporations.
In the past 15 or so years, our corporate sector has ben able to get away with alot. We have gone from "fixed benefit" retirement programs to 401K programs into which most employers pay comparitively little. We have allowed corporate employers to alter those fixed benefit plans so as to cut retiree's benefits. What is this, the USA, Inc?
If anybody has an explanation as to how the administration's plan will save SS, or will benefit the employees/retirees, I'd like to hear it. Somehow, I don't think I will!
Oh, by the way, some may be asking what my political leanings are. Well here they are: I am a Goldwater conservative! Surprised? You should not be. We don't like reckless spending. When a valid government program is underfunded, we don't like cutting the "tax" funding that program. We don't like running up the Federal deficit. We don't like anything that wouldn't pass accounting muster in business. If we wanted to do away with SS, we'd just do it, and leave the employees with the money to invest for themselves. But we wouldn't leave the program in place in a way to rip off the employees and provide a back door employer tax cut!
Can anybody justify this?