1. 50% Social Security Tax Hike 2. Proposed permit to collect rainwater.

[tex]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011605Y.shtml

Social Security Tax Hike Feared

By Alan Fram

The Associated Press

Saturday 15 January 2005

Bush official predicts 50% jump with no revamp.

Washington - Social Security taxes will have to rise by half if lawmakers don't revamp the giant program, President Bush's budget chief said Friday as the administration sought support for its overhaul plans.

The comments by Joshua Bolten came as Democrats accused the administration of hiding the costs of its plans for shoring up the pension system for the elderly and disabled.

The White House has talked about letting workers voluntarily divert part of their payroll taxes to investment accounts they would control but has provided no detail.

Democrats say the model most often described would cost more than $2 trillion over the first decade alone and hasten the program's fiscal problems.

In remarks Friday to members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bolten said the 70-year-old program has failed to change with the times. The number of workers paying Social Security taxes has shrunk compared to the number of retirees whose benefits they are supporting, yet more than 20 tax increases in recent decades have not fixed the imbalance, he said.

"All these tax increases did was push those problems out to be solved another day," Bolten said. "That day has arrived."

$600 Billion a Year

Bolten revealed no new information about what Bush will propose. Trustees who oversee Social Security say the program will fall $3.7 trillion short of its obligations over the next 75 years, and Bolten said the problem will grow by $600 billion each year it is not addressed.

"If we do nothing to fix Social Security, we will eventually need to raise Social Security payroll taxes on Americans by about 50 percent," he said.

Such an increase would stifle job creation and prompt employers to lower wages, Bolten said.

The White House is considering letting workers divert up to two-thirds of the 6.2 percent paid in payroll taxes into investment accounts, up to perhaps $1,000 to $1,300 a year, administration officials have said.

Bush has said retirees and people about to retire will not see their benefits reduced.

Lower Benefits Mulled

To help make up for lost revenue, the administration is considering reducing the benefits of future retirees, but it has not specified for whom or by how much. That has left an opening for attacks by Democrats.

"We have seen this administration use exaggeration and distortion before in order to advance its ideological agenda, with painful results," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "The kind of plan the president supports only achieves solvency for Social Security through massive cuts in guaranteed benefits. Private accounts actually weaken the solvency of the program."

Bush's plan won't be included in the 2006 budget the president proposes on Feb. 7, but Bolten said he expects more details about the Social Security proposal to be revealed by then.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011605Y.shtml

Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13, 2005, to authorize the department of ecology to require any person using rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit from the department prior to collection of rainwater. Rainwater must be intended for beneficial use on the same property from where it was collected.

* Referred to the Senate Water, Energy, and Environment Committee on January 13, 2005.

[Larry]

And yet, I also keep reading about studies that say SS, completely unchanged, is fone for something like 45 years. And supposedly, if the increase the tax by 1%, then it's good for something like 70 years.

Being rather sceptical about claims made by the Bush White House, I tend to suspect that this is why the study talks about shortfall over 75 years.

(For some reason, when we're talking about a tax cut, then we have a forecast that predicts a surplus in five years. But when we want to pitch Social Security, then a crisis 75 years away needs to be dealt with immediatly.)

[atloldskin]

It all depends on which budgetary figures (and underlying assumptions) you use, but in all events, social security will go broke if it is not fixed.

So, lets fix it without all of the political arguments for once. You can increase payroll taxes, reduce benefits, start benefits at a later age, privatize the system, or use a combination of these factors. There are no other solutions.

[Fred Jones]

From what I have been reading SS is really not the problem. I am not saying it doesn't require some fixing, but the big problem is Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs need to be fixed. Bush and his boys have so far ignored these two programs, and for good reason. They both are more difficult to fix than SS. If we hadn't kept taking money out of SS all these years the program would probably never need fixing, but that is another story.

[Larry]

Oh, I think raising the retirement age would be the way to go. Let's make "the system" more in line with real-world demographics.

One drawback with that plan is that a bunch of people are going to scream that "you're reneging on a promise". The way I'd do it is gradually. I think retirement age should remain unchanged for, say, two years, then increase gradually, say one year increase every two years, untill it reaches the new target (say 70). That way, if you're 62 now, then this change only affects you by one year. If you're 30, then you can just go ahead and plan on 70.

The drawback with that plan is the jobs where it's really not fair (or not safe) for people to be working at that age. (I don't think we want 70-year-old coal miners or truck drivers, in general.)

And that, unfortunately, means you'd have to have a proceedure where some people could retire earlier, without penalty. And that means more bureaucracy, because people will try to cheat. So, it's not a perfect system, but it seems like the best one, to me.

Unfortunately, what I see about the current proposal is:

• It's a manufactured crisis. (Can you say "WMD"?) Yes, it's going to have problems eventually. And yes, solving problems now is usually better than waiting for a crisis.
  (I think a lot of my problem is a lack of trust. If I honestly thought he was trying to solve the problem, I'd admire his courage for dealing with "the third rail".)
  
• Unfortunately, the current proposal deliberatly offers no guarantees at all. In fact, it gets rid of some. The only things guaranteed in the current proposal is:
  1. SS will have less money coming in right now, than it had before.
     
  2. In effect, the money people are putting in their private accounts, will be money that the feds are borrowing, at a time when we're already setting record defecits, and planning on setting new records, and when some economists are predicting very bad consequences, for the US and the world. (Granted, somebody's always predicting "the sky is falling". But, to me, the doomsayers at least have a point.)
     
  3. Folks who own the stock market now are guaranteed to make big bucks. (I've read that something like 90% of the stock market is owned by less than 1% of the population. And they'd love for 100M newbies to show up at their poker table with $1000 each.)
     The "financial planning" industry (who, I've read, are paying something like 90% of the costs for Bush's inauguration parties, BTW, and who, let's face it, are also owned by those same folks who own the stock market), are also on the list of folks who're guaranteed to make money, off the bat, if this passes.
     
  4. Meanwhile, one clause I've also read about the current proposal is that it also, BTW, eliminates the current guarantee on benefits from the feds.
     [/list=1]
     

  In short, while I really like the idea of migrating to a system where individuals can actually see where their money's going, and where, hopefully, it won't be so easy for the feds to just borrow it (at the lowest rates in the market); well, I guess the short summary is "I feel a dark disturbance in the force".

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Larry

And yet, I also keep reading about studies that say SS, completely unchanged, is fone for something like 45 years. And supposedly, if the increase the tax by 1%, then it's good for something like 70 years.

Being rather sceptical about claims made by the Bush White House, I tend to suspect that this is why the study talks about shortfall over 75 years.

(For some reason, when we're talking about a tax cut, then we have a forecast that predicts a surplus in five years. But when we want to pitch Social Security, then a crisis 75 years away needs to be dealt with immediatly.)

If I see a crash ahead of me while I am driving, and I say to my wife "Don't worry, I don't need to turn for another 200 yards"... and I just keep steaming ahead, I will get what I deserve. I may miss the crash, but I’ll have to make drastic changes to do so.

I know the typical response is “Hey, just raise taxes.” When that doesn’t solve the problem... raise taxes again. When that doesn’t work... try raising taxes again.

The system is doomed to failure. It has to be changed. I know that running commercials with senior citizens eating dog food will be the smart short term political play, but the fact is SS has to be changed. I think the Repubs will lose their majority over this, but someone has to do it. It simply has to be fixed... preferably without raising taxes.

If I could opt out I would, but I can’t so I pray that someone will change the system. If not for me, then for my (future) children.

[Cskin]

Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13, 2005, to authorize the department of ecology to require any person using rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit from the department prior to collection of rainwater. Rainwater must be intended for beneficial use on the same property from where it was collected.

It's just a matter of time before the ****roaches in Washington determine there needs to be a tax on the air we breathe. They'll come up with some formula for the number of time you inhale in a day and how much volume your lungs expand and then tax you to do so.... you know... using a precious resource. :doh:

Please people.... get educated and get these treasonous mf'ers out of our lives.

As for SS, it's a ponzi scheme perpetrated by the federal govt. to interject their will in our lives via the lure... and threat... of your retirement opportunities.

[NoCalMike]

Umm, why don't they raise the current cap on SS tax. As of today only up to 87k or so is taxed for social security, with the wealthy arguing that they shouldn't have to pay into something they never use. Well to me that is a strawman theory as Social Security is basically a form/type of insurance for everyone, it is not a retirement fund. So I say to all those billionaires, if you used american resources and citizens for your work force, then you damn well better be paying SS tax.

[NoCalMike]

Introduced by Sen. Paull Shin on January 13, 2005, to authorize the department of ecology to require any person using rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater to receive a permit from the department prior to collection of rainwater. Rainwater must be intended for beneficial use on the same property from where it was collected.

* Referred to the Senate Water, Energy, and Environment Committee on January 13, 2005. [/b]

I saw a documentary called "The Corporation" where some corporation put a patton(however you spell it) on rainwater in a southeastern country, so it was actually illegal for villagers to collect rain water, which in that country and in the poor areas, it was NECESSARY for them to do so for crops and drinking water. Of course these companies didn't have a soul, so they went ahead and did it anyway, and would try to charge the people for rain water that they collected. This of course led about 98% of the country's population to march and protest, and the government had no choice but to void that patton. Here in america, it is sad because something like this will easily go overlooked, and no one will care because hey "it doesn't effect me" but it is little laws like this, passed over time that eventually lead to disaster.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Nerm

If I see a crash ahead of me while I am driving, and I say to my wife "Don't worry, I don't need to turn for another 200 yards"... and I just keep steaming ahead, I will get what I deserve. I may miss the crash, but I’ll have to make drastic changes to do so.

But, if you hear a report of an accident on the road 500 miles ahead, you don't pull off the road and buy a 4WD vehicle, on credit, and claim you're doing it "to avoid a crisis", because when you get to that spot, it might be possible to go around the accident.

And to a driver, 500 miles is a few hours. The SS "crisis" predictions are talking about 75 years. (How many people buy 4wd vehicles because they think they'll need them 75 years from now)?

The Bush forecasts of an SS disaster are about as imminent as the forcasts of Global Warming. (Although, granted, I find them somewhat more credible. But only somewhat.)

[Akhhorus]

According the Social Security, they're fine. And will be for years. You will here this line change thanks to political pressure. It is doubtful that Bush will get his changes through, because in the words of Ray LaHood(GOP Rep for Illinois), "we dont want the Democrats running ads for 20 years on how the GOP destroyed Social Security". Two options in Government: Do something, Do nothing; doing nothing has less risk.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Larry

But, if you hear a report of an accident on the road 500 miles ahead, you don't pull off the road and buy a 4WD vehicle, on credit, and claim you're doing it "to avoid a crisis", because when you get to that spot, it might be possible to go around the accident.

And to a driver, 500 miles is a few hours. The SS "crisis" predictions are talking about 75 years. (How many people buy 4wd vehicles because they think they'll need them 75 years from now)?

The Bush forecasts of an SS disaster are about as imminent as the forcasts of Global Warming. (Although, granted, I find them somewhat more credible. But only somewhat.)

The reality is, either more money needs to go into the system or less needs to go out of the system. The longer you wait, the more drastic the changes need to be. I dont think the "disaster" is imminent. There will never be a "disaster" unless we put off fixing the program.

[Joe Sick]

Taxes increase by 50%?

What a nice, round number to scare people with!

It's a shame so many people are believing that this is a "crisis."

The solution is to stop Bush and the Govt. from taking money out of Social Security, forget the tax cuts for the rich, boost SS threshold up to 125k at least and raise the retirement age.

[Thiebear]

I've got 19yrs in and dont have to work another minute to get my benefits... 1600 bucks a month.. 2300 if i keep going...

I'd give all of that up and start over with the 4%.

19yrs wiped clean for a better way.

If we can prove that SS can be redifined and get it to work better we can then fix Medicare and Medicaid with the same template.

Throughout History we have proven that we can tear things down and build it back better.. why not fix this as its clearly broken..

Didnt Congress/Senate opt out of this? and have their own plan?

if so, i wouldnt look to them to tell you how good it is...

[tex]

Sorry for the mix up. Here is the correct link to the artical.

http://www.washingtonvotes.org/2005-SB-5113

I saw a documentary called "The Corporation" where some corporation put a patton(however you spell it) on rainwater in a southeastern country, so it was actually illegal for villagers to collect rain water, which in that country and in the poor areas, it was NECESSARY for them to do so for crops and drinking water. Of course these companies didn't have a soul, so they went ahead and did it anyway, and would try to charge the people for rain water that they collected. This of course led about 98% of the country's population to march and protest, and the government had no choice but to void that patton. Here in america, it is sad because something like this will easily go overlooked, and no one will care because hey "it doesn't effect me" but it is little laws like this, passed over time that eventually lead to disaster.

It's just a matter of time before the ****roaches in Washington determine there needs to be a tax on the air we breathe. They'll come up with some formula for the number of time you inhale in a day and how much volume your lungs expand and then tax you to do so.... you know... using a precious resource.

Mrs. tex and I subsist almost entirely on rainwater. We have metal roofs on our buildings that funnel all of that naturally distilled liquid sunshine into our 7000 gallon on site water system. We do this because there is no public water system to hookup to and the fact that several folks we know have spent upwards of 35K drilling for water with no success. It will be a cold dark day in hell when I submit and agree that the government owns the rain that falls from the sky.

[Destino]

This "plan" is little more then a pass the buck scheme. The white house talks a good game about not leaving problems for future leaders when that is exactly what's being done here. There is no plan to pay for any of this, it's all being piled on to teh deficit for some future schmuck to have to deal with. 2 Trillion in a single decade.

I want SS replaced by mandatory personal accounts, but I'm not naive enough to think such a thing won't have to be paid for. This is typical GOP empty promise government. We cut taxes to earn political points, but don't cut spending thus leaving the real problems for your children.

[Art]

Originally posted by Destino

This "plan" is little more then a pass the buck scheme. The white house talks a good game about not leaving problems for future leaders when that is exactly what's being done here. There is no plan to pay for any of this, it's all being piled on to teh deficit for some future schmuck to have to deal with. 2 Trillion in a single decade.

I want SS replaced by mandatory personal accounts, but I'm not naive enough to think such a thing won't have to be paid for. This is typical GOP empty promise government. We cut taxes to earn political points, but don't cut spending thus leaving the real problems for your children.

Except, Destino, there IS a way to pay for all this.

It's a simple way, too.

Simply prevent the government from SPENDING social security taxes on anything BUT social security. That's it. Take the money from the government and put it in individual accounts that the government CAN'T touch. Do that, and it's paid for. Don't do that, and it isn't.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Art

Except, Destino, there IS a way to pay for all this.

It's a simple way, too.

Simply prevent the government from SPENDING social security taxes on anything BUT social security. That's it. Take the money from the government and put it in individual accounts that the government CAN'T touch. Do that, and it's paid for. Don't do that, and it isn't.

I agre with you, once the system has been switched from the scam it is now to a system similar to the Chilean one all we have to do is keep the greedy politicians out of our accounts. However there is a question of transition costs. Have you heard of how we plan to pay for that? The details I've gotten aren't very good so if you know something share it.

Also anyone else interested in what is going to happen when the fat cats no longer have surplus dollars to dip into?