Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Souder - Hayhurst Debate: Social Security

I watched the debate between Souder and Hayhurst and I would say Souder won the debate. On the question of Social Security, both candidates showed their clear lack of knowledge. Both pledged not to raise taxes while at the same time. Souder stated Social Security taxes on our children would have to rise to 20% with a combined total of 40% in the future. Hayhurst stated a pledge to keep a great program going.

Is Hayhurst ignorant or stupid? He is older than I and should have seen first hand the impact of the increase in both base and tax rates of social security on workers wages, savings and the economy. This disconnect between where the money comes from and where it goes seems to escape him completely. He also referred to Bill Gates paying very little in Social Security taxes compared to a person making a $100K. Hayhurst apparently does not understand that it is not the taxes paid that determine ones social security benefit, but the wages subjected to the social security tax. If the tax rate were to be applied to all wages, then Bill Gates social Security check would be very, very large.

Souder again states he supports incentives for people to save. My question to Souder is after Social Security takes 20% of your wages, where do you get the money to save to take advantage of the incentives? Furthermore, with the unified budget in deficit and the general budget deficit $200 billion larger than that is, where does he propose the funds come to provide savings incentives? Sounds like Enron Accounting to me.

As I have stated since 2002, there is no painless solution. Workers will again send Social Security on average $4,000 this year and a similar amount in 2007. What are you getting for this $8,000? Social Security is not getting better, but worse.

Social Security

3 Comments:

At 10:06 PM, Anonymous Bobett said...

Well said.

I enjoy your thoughtful anaylsis
here and on many of the topics you research and write on.

Thanks!

 
At 7:15 PM, Blogger William Larsen said...

Thank you for your kind comments. It just burns me to hear candidates for U.S. Representative say stupid things and yet people end up believing them. Both appear to support Ethanol, but have not the slightest clue that even after co-product energy credits that it is just slightly positive (this could easily be negative if you include the energy consumption of those working at the plant). A true energy balance includes all energy consumed and converted.

Hayrhurst referred to Brazil's Ethanol production and thinks our corn base and their sugar cane base ethanol is the same. Sugar cane produces more ethanol per BTU input than corn base. Corn base ethanol produces about 1.5 gallons per bushel, 149 bushels per acre, 87 million acres of corn in the U.S.

I will be back in 2008. I project my support will continue to grow exponentially over the next two years. My message in 2008 will be something like this.

Since 2002 the average worker has paid into Social Security about $20,000. At the same time your share of the Social Security unfunded liability grew from just over $85,000 to over $110,000. Statistically speaking you will pay far more in Social Security Taxes than Federal Income taxes. Should federal income taxes be more important than Social Security Taxes, no? Is social security a good deal for you, if not what are you going to do to correct this?

 
At 7:04 PM, Blogger Jeff Pruitt said...

Bill,

Nearly every single comment Souder made in that debate was a mischaracterization - see my post dealing w/ only the first 15 minutes at Left of Centrist.

I might go ahead and refute the rest but then again why bother? Everyone knows what Souder is.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home



NBC-33 Debate poll results from 2002