I wonder what would happen if suddenly everyone decided NOT to pay any taxes to the federal gov.?

It's not like they can bust everybody!! ;~D

Although that would make it hard for me to collect my VA disability pay, now wouldn't it..... Hmmm, going to have to think about this one.. ;~D

The most interesting historical fact is that originally the SS program was billed as a private account system by President Roosevelt. But because of the Republican stacked Supreme court had repeatedly shot down other progressive reform Acts, as unconstitutional, Roosevelt had to change to a much easier pay as you go tax system. A private account was one of the Republicans big complaints in 1932-40 about Government interfering too much in Private financial institutions.

Good old President Roosevelt had to sacrifice what he wanted due to politics.

It took only eight years to Republicans and Democrats to swap sides on the issue.

Just ironic isn’t it?

That's My Two Cents

The most interesting historical fact is that originally the SS program was billed as a private account system by President Roosevelt. But because of the Republican stacked Supreme court had repeatedly shot down other progressive reform Acts, as unconstitutional, Roosevelt had to change to a much easier pay as you go tax system. A private account was one of the Republicans big complaints in 1932-40 about Government interfering too much in Private financial institutions.

Not doubting you as I plain just dont know, but do you have some links I can read?  I find your thesis to be very ironic!  And perhaps very stupid of republicans back then.

Do we trust bush and his teams to handle this? Is this the right time to do this? We're already in a war, or a couple wars if you think about it. We're already in some financial poop as a country right now, and our dollar value is at an all-time low. Overseas investors are pulling cash out from the US quite rapidly. I don't really have much comfort in thinking Bush should be "The Guy" to handle this. I mean heres a guy thats a multiple-failure at running businesses, has a proven track record of incompetance, and an overall lack of "Empathy" for his constituents, and you want HIM to decide our future for the next 50 years? NOT ME!

why is this so hard to fix?

Not doubting you as I plain just dont know, but do you have some links I can read? I find your thesis to be very ironic! And perhaps very stupid of republicans back then.

I have no problem with your doubt, every thing you read today needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I am taking History 416 "US Political history 1918-present" at the University now. My professor spent half of the last class talking about SS Act, just a few hours before Bush's SOTU speech. He had said something I heard Bill Bennet confirm on one of the Fox news shows tonight. Both of them said that Roosevelt's hand written notes from meetings showed him originally working on a Private account system. I will have to ask my professor for a reference in my next class on Monday. This Professor is sharp. He had published at least five “good sellable” history texted books. He name is Richard O. Davies, a Republican (that I can figure), he slams both sides equally, and a proud recipient of Social Security.

Here is something that I did find on a quick search:

"A now almost-forgotten part of the Economic Security Act, Title V, proposed voluntary old-age annuities to supplement compulsory old-age insurance. All workers, including those excluded from the compulsory system, would have been allowed to make periodic voluntary deposits—in effect, loans—to the old-age fund. Workers who participated would hold certificates representing amounts they had deposited. At 65, workers would trade in their certificates for annuities, paying up to a maximum of $100 per annuitant per month, based on their total deposits plus interest. Title V would have helped workers save for retirement, and would have helped the government raise revenue for the payment of old-age benefits."

The rest of the link is here:Link

A very interesting article and a good read. Unfortunately I was only able to spot read, because I'm also taking two other classes, have a family and working full time. But when I catch up on my homework I'll dig up some more articles.

That's My Two Cents

The reason it's so hard to fix is that there is no easy fix.

Simply put, on a "pay as you go" system like social security, it requires X number of workers for Y retireess. 

Well, the number of workers per retiree is dropping too low and the system will no longer work.

You have to either:

A) Tax the workers far more to make up the difference.

Change the system so that the money workers pay to the system is used more effectively.

Bush is going for option B.  Social Security has a horrible return on investment.  Even a savings account at the bank is better.

But going from a pay as you go system to a personal account system means we'll have to borrow (or tax) people a lot during the transition from the pay as you go to the personal accounts.  The sooner we do this, the less painful that will be. But it's still painful even now.

The alarmist cries about the Social Security are rather funny. This isn’t about fixing something that will destroy your economy, it’s an ideological debate between Neoliberals and Keynesians. Economic theories always have more than one solution; there’s absolutely no way to possess the absolute truth on a macroeconomic level. If the whole economy crashes, it certainly won’t be because of Social Security. Adequate reforms can easily be applied by both sides for whatever problems that could occur from the aging of the population. But these reforms won’t necessarily fix anything (or be a better alternative from keeping it).

The real question you should be asking is: do you want to increase the individualistic tendencies in society brought by the wave of neoliberalism from the past 20 years or keep some social cohesion?

the social security trustees dispute the 2042 date. 

social security and medicare works to the benefit of younger workers altho indirectly.  aging relatives are increasingly prone to illnesses and accidents requiring extensive medical care. without medicare, those costs can quickly wipe out a an extended family's resources.  pension benefits limit out--even if they havent been whittled down to nothing by former employers. according to a study i saw a couple days ago, private insurance rarely provides adequate protection for severe chronic illnesses.  

there's no reason to assume privatization will work any better for individuals than it has for employee pension funds which are--along with insurers--among the largest investors.  some do well.  others have suffered.  they have leverage no individuals are ever going to enjoy.

as steven dedalus has pointed out repeatedly in his articles, someone is going to benefit very well if the proposed 'reforms' are implemented--unless youre going to be earning interest on the trillions of national debt that bush so cavalierly ignores, it wont be you.

Reply #24 By: kingbee - 2/4/2005 1:32:19 AM the social security trustees dispute the 2042 date. social security and medicare works to the benefit of younger workers altho indirectly. aging relatives are increasingly prone to illnesses and accidents requiring extensive medical care. without medicare, those costs can quickly wipe out a an extended family's resources. pension benefits limit out--even if they havent been whittled down to nothing by former employers. according to a study i saw a couple days ago, private insurance rarely provides adequate protection for severe chronic illnesses. there's no reason to assume privatization will work any better for individuals than it has for employee pension funds which are--along with insurers--among the largest investors. some do well. others have suffered. they have leverage no individuals are ever going to enjoy. as steven dedalus has pointed out repeatedly in his articles, someone is going to benefit very well if the proposed 'reforms' are implemented--unless youre going to be earning interest on the trillions of national debt that bush so cavalierly ignores, it wont be you.

I'm just a little fed up with this *whole* thing. People just don't seem to understand. The purposed privatization of SS is the same thing as your 401k yet I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

People just don't seem to understand. The purposed privatization of SS is the same thing as your 401k

well at least one of us dont understand how and why it isnt the same thing. 

most obviously, you can voluntarily cash in your 401k (admittedly youll pay a penalty assuming you havent gone broke by next april) and spend it.  a 401k is intended to permit you to accrue interest and defer taxes on earning you elect to save.  it isnt intended to keep you from starving to death or dying from untreated illness when youre too old--or unable--to work.  your 401k can vanish without putting you at the mercy of your relatives', friends' or some other kind soul's kindness  

your 401k can vanish without putting you at the mercy of your relatives', friends' or some other kind soul's kindness

That is wrong. If it is your only retirement fund, it will do just that.  You apparently dont understand the issue, and blindly following the bleating of the democrat leadership. 

Bottom line, the fix is going to be painful for some as there is no easy fix, and to ignore it is just plain stupid and myopic.

The rest of the link is here:Link

Thanks Lee.  It is interesting to see that the system was not corrupted until 1956.  The year I was born!  Seems you can trust politicians do one thing. Screw up a good idea very badly.

You apparently dont understand the issue, and blindly following the bleating of the democrat leadership.

i provided several key reasons why 401k differs from social security.  here's one more:  people who earn only enough money to get buy can't afford to fund a 401k.  those for whom social security may prove to be their ownly retirement income (possibly because their 401k was stolen by enron executives or lost in the dot-com bust) shouldnt be permitted--much less encouraged--to take any risks with their future.   whether you agree or not has no bearing on the extent of my understanding of the issue.  

to the best of my knowledge there is no *democratic leadership* but even if there is, my positions are my own and not your usual flurry of cut-and-pasted opinions expressed by some crackpot flacks at newsmax.  as far as bleating partison propaganda goes, i dont recall once seeing you disagree anything you perceive as official republican policy or show any hesitancy in leaping to the defense of even the most hare-brained of your party's proposals.  

it wouldnt surprise me a bit to learn you sleep in red elephant pajamas and your underwear is emblazoned with pics of bush and cheney.

i provided several key reasons why 401k differs from social security. here's one more: people who earn only enough money to get buy can't afford to fund a 401k.

EVERYONE can afford a 401K.  After all, 12.6 percent of every penny a poor person makes (his 6.3 and the employer's 6.3) goes into a Ponzi scheme that has less than a 2% return, if that (he has to live to be very old to get a positive return on SS).  So that breaks your arguement there.