A Senior Asks About My Plan
I attended the Southwest Conservation Club on Wednesday and spoke to the Association. Afterwards an older woman asked me point blank what my position was on Social Security. I told her that my plan was to help those who needed help, while those who did not need help would loose their Social Security benefits.
She listened to what I had to say for a good five minutes. I covered how the program began such as the payroll tax being just 2% when Commission Altmeyer stated it should be closer to 7% of payroll in 1944. She had known a lot about Social Security, but had never before correlated all that she knew. She told me she lives on Social Security and that it was her sole source of income.
I explained to her my plan would pay her and any other person found to be in need $1,133 per month. This would be indexed by the change in the U.S. Average Wage, not the CPI index. This change in indexing would maintain the standard of living of the person in need with that of the economy. The CPI index only maintains the ability to buy those goods and services that were in the “basket” when the CPI index was calculated in the year they began drawing benefits.
This person told me her Social Security was just around $834 a month. Under my plan she would see an increase of just about $299.
In the end she accepted the fact Social Security was broke, that something had to be done and that continuing it was unfair for her children and grandchildren.
posted by William Larsen @ 8:26 AM
5 Comments:
YOURE GONNA LOOSE
I'm sure you'll enjoy this
Social Security made the Human Events list as the #1 most harmful government program.
Anonymous said...YOURE GONNA LOOSE
I take it Anonymous that you do not support me. This tells me several things. One you like social security, which means you are either very ignorant or close to or drawing a Social Security Benefit. If you are drawing a benefit, do you think you earned it?
When a person says “We Earned it!” what exactly do they mean?
To me, this phrase is a righteous euphemism for making the more truthful statement: "We were snookered by this Social Security Ponzi scheme, and now we are going to snooker the next generation!"
If Social Security benefits have been "earned" who is obligated to pay benefits to those who "earned" them? Workers? On a regressive tax basis? Why? Why perpetuate a fraud upon the innocent? Who is responsible for bearing the burden of a fraud? The person defrauded? Or an innocent or unborn child?
If you are under age 46 do you realize just how bad Social Security is to your future? The average worker applying the Social Security tax each month to a mortgage reduces a 30-year mortgage to less than 14-1/2 years. Now make the very same payment of principal, interest and Social Security tax into 5% US Savings bonds for the remaining payments of the original term. At the end of 30 years the worker would have a home plus $370,646. This $370,646 is the value attributed to the Social Security tax being used to pay off the mortgage early.
The Social Security Administration has stated they can pay but 73% of benefits. This means the effective interest rate paid on our Social Security taxes is close to zero if not negative. Assuming a 1% return the value at the end of 30 years for the Social Security benefit is $177,807. The mortgage application method improved the net-worth of the worker by $192,839.
Now to the numbers: There are 117 million potential voters in the US under age 46. There are 36.5 Million potential voters over age 64. There are about 60 million voters between age 46 and 65. If the majority of those under age 46 finally decide they do not like social security, there is nothing the others can do. How lucky do you feel
Jeff, thanks for the link. I would have put earmarking a bit higher.
Don't sweat the anonymous jackass too much, they keep posting these inflammatory troll-comments all over Sylvester's blog too...you'd think they'd at least try to spell properly if they wanted anyone to listen to their ranting.
Post a Comment
<< Home