Greenspan Urges Caution on Social Security (1 Viewer)

[Schweddy]

Source: NewsMax

WASHINGTON -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on Wednesday urged a go-slow approach on personal Social Security accounts, saying that while he embraces the idea central to President Bush's proposed overhaul, he is concerned about stability in financial markets.

"If you are going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way," Greenspan said in response to intense questioning from both Republicans and Democrats in an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee.

"I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run," he said because something must be done to fix the system.


Bush's proposal would allow workers under age 55 to divert a chunk of their Social Security taxes into voluntary, private investment accounts.

Greenspan repeated his call to Congress to take action to shore up the massive entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare. Those programs face huge financial strains with the looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers in 2008. His remarks came as he delivered the Fed's twice a year economic outlook to Congress.

 

[gordontravels]

What I find interesting is that when it was Clinton/Gore and the President called SS a crisis and wanted something done, his party railed against the Republicans in power. Now that the Republicans have power and a Republican President is echoing President Clinton, the Democrats say there is no crisis. THAT IS THE CRISIS. Having a major political party saying something for purely political purposes. If that were to keep up for say 12 years, there would be a crisis that would call for more drastic measures than are needed to turn the system around now. Greenspan also said that. Don't count on your media to tell you the truth; participation at least on the listening level is crucial if you want the whole story. Republicans and Democrats are more interested in elections than work; believe it ~~~

 

[anomaly]

Democrats don't deny that there is a SS crisis, they just don't like how Bush is planning to handle it (his plan will cost upwards of 2 trillion dollars)

 

[Pacridge]

What I find interesting is that when it was Clinton/Gore and the President called SS a crisis and wanted something done, his party railed against the Republicans in power. Now that the Republicans have power and a Republican President is echoing President Clinton, the Democrats say there is no crisis. THAT IS THE CRISIS. Having a major political party saying something for purely political purposes. If that were to keep up for say 12 years, there would be a crisis that would call for more drastic measures than are needed to turn the system around now. Greenspan also said that. Don't count on your media to tell you the truth; participation at least on the listening level is crucial if you want the whole story. Republicans and Democrats are more interested in elections than work; believe it ~~~

I have yet to hear anyone, Democrat or Republican, say Social Security is not headed for problems. Both parties have been saying that for some time. Trying now to say the Democrats are claiming there is no problem is completely inaccurate. Basically that's a lie. The disagreement lies solely on the method President Bush is proposing to as a solution to the systems financial funding short falls. Seems they're curious as to how removing large amounts of money from that system will cure that short fall. They're also concerned with how exactly President Bush plans to pay for removing such a large amount of money from the system. By the way- that's a curiosity many Republican leaders also share. Believe it.

 

[gordontravels]

I have yet to hear anyone, Democrat or Republican, say Social Security is not headed for problems. Both parties have been saying that for some time. Trying now to say the Democrats are claiming there is no problem is completely inaccurate. Basically that's a lie. The disagreement lies solely on the method President Bush is proposing to as a solution to the systems financial funding short falls. Seems they're curious as to how removing large amounts of money from that system will cure that short fall. They're also concerned with how exactly President Bush plans to pay for removing such a large amount of money from the system. By the way- that's a curiosity many Republican leaders also share. Believe it.

I enjoy being called a liar, especially when I can give you the exact people that I quote. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Leader of the House and Senator Teddy Kennedy. These are the Democrats today that have actually said the words, "There is no crisis in Social Security!" If you only want to talk basically; then basically these Democrats have made these statements on their respective floors and in the sympathetic mass media. In particular, both have been quoted or said it on the usual news networks and on c-span within the last two weeks. Maybe you just don't like me saying "Democrats" or referring to President Clinton or Al Gore who both made the statements of crisis that I alude to. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both made statements of need to act. President Nixon was the first to warn of a "crisis in the future".

If you don't like me using the "Democrats" title then I would be glad to substitute "obstructionist" and even "Republicans". There are spotlight seekers of all ilk who know how to get their time on television. When FDR's Social Security hit the road there were 44 workers for every retiree. Now there is a fraction less than 3 for every 1 worker. Various sources say it goes negative from 2018 to 2022 if we do nothing and Alan Greenspan said if we wait, the fix will just get bigger and harder to accomplish every delayed year starting now. He was also on TV so you can get a transcript of what he said. ABC didn't even report Greenspans words on the day he uttered them but waited til the next night. Peter J doesn't like President Bush.

You use the word "problems"; I use the word "crisis". Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy say there is no "crisis". Alan Greenspan says what the President wants to do is a good idea and if nothing is done the Social Security system will move toward an "unworkable crisis" faster for each year we ignore "the looming crisis". Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, President Clinton and our current President have all used the word crisis in reference to Social Security. Of course, since they are all politicians, they are liars. I seem to be in good company ~~~

 

[Pacridge]

I enjoy being called a liar, especially when I can give you the exact people that I quote. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Leader of the House and Senator Teddy Kennedy. These are the Democrats today that have actually said the words, "There is no crisis in Social Security!" If you only want to talk basically; then basically these Democrats have made these statements on their respective floors and in the sympathetic mass media. In particular, both have been quoted or said it on the usual news networks and on c-span within the last two weeks. Maybe you just don't like me saying "Democrats" or referring to President Clinton or Al Gore who both made the statements of crisis that I alude to. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both made statements of need to act. President Nixon was the first to warn of a "crisis in the future".

If you don't like me using the "Democrats" title then I would be glad to substitute "obstructionist" and even "Republicans". There are spotlight seekers of all ilk who know how to get their time on television. When FDR's Social Security hit the road there were 44 workers for every retiree. Now there is a fraction less than 3 for every 1 worker. Various sources say it goes negative from 2018 to 2022 if we do nothing and Alan Greenspan said if we wait, the fix will just get bigger and harder to accomplish every delayed year starting now. He was also on TV so you can get a transcript of what he said. ABC didn't even report Greenspans words on the day he uttered them but waited til the next night. Peter J doesn't like President Bush.

You use the word "problems"; I use the word "crisis". Nancy Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy say there is no "crisis". Alan Greenspan says what the President wants to do is a good idea and if nothing is done the Social Security system will move toward an "unworkable crisis" faster for each year we ignore "the looming crisis". Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, President Clinton and our current President have all used the word crisis in reference to Social Security. Of course, since they are all politicians, they are liars. I seem to be in good company ~~~

As you point out every ones said there's a problem, then you try to claim they're saying there is no problem. Or is your claim just that one side is calling it's a crisis and the other isn't? Only thing that's going on here is the conservatives movements attempt to paint the problem out to be larger than it is and to attempt to put forth a fix that doesn't fix anything. The Presidents own Press Sec. Scott McClellan stated on the day after Bush's SOTUA that the private accounts do not address Social Securities funding short fall. He said "they are separate issues, the short fall will have to be addressed by other measures." Again, removing funds from a financially strapped system won't help fix that systems funding problems. And I'm more then a little trouble at the prospect of borrowing trillions of dollars at a time when we already have record debts. I'm in good bi-partisan company with my concern. Bush is creating a whole new breed of American Politician: the Borrow and Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend conservative. More than a few in the GOP are starting to show their concern.

As far as politicians being liars: I couldn't agree with you more. I have yet to hear or find one that hasn't, at some point, lied through his/her teeth to further his/her career.

 

[gordontravels]

As you point out every ones said there's a problem, then you try to claim they're saying there is no problem. Or is your claim just that one side is calling it's a crisis and the other isn't? Only thing that's going on here is the conservatives movements attempt to paint the problem out to be larger than it is and to attempt to put forth a fix that doesn't fix anything. The Presidents own Press Sec. Scott McClellan stated on the day after Bush's SOTUA that the private accounts do not address Social Securities funding short fall. He said "they are separate issues, the short fall will have to be addressed by other measures." Again, removing funds from a financially strapped system won't help fix that systems funding problems. And I'm more then a little trouble at the prospect of borrowing trillions of dollars at a time when we already have record debts. I'm in good bi-partisan company with my concern. Bush is creating a whole new breed of American Politician: the Borrow and Spend, Spend, Spend, Spend conservative. More than a few in the GOP are starting to show their concern.

As far as politicians being liars: I couldn't agree with you more. I have yet to hear or find one that hasn't, at some point, lied through his/her teeth to further his/her career.

Quite the contrary; I don't use the term "problem", you do. I use the term "crisis" just as did the Democrats and their President and Vice President did prior to President George W. Bush. Remember Bill Clinton and Al Gore? "Crisis", said they. Senator Kennedy stood on the Senate floor and said "crisis" along with John Kerry and the current Democrat Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Nancy Pelosi used time in the House with Richard Gephart; both using the term "crisis". Brit Hume of Fox News Channel did a collage of nearly two dozen Democrats from the Clinton Era using the term "crisis" in regard to Social Security. It's a great headline grabber. So what? You think saying "problem" makes it smaller and "crisis" makes it bigger? How about the Democrats just realizing that if it is done under a Republican where the credit will go. For 8 years the Democrats said that Social Security faced "crisis" and they said the word. Is that a "problem"? Only if you have changed your words because of politics. To his credit, President Clinton has come out in just the last few weeks and said "crisis" again. I voted for him; once.

I retired young on simple, conservative investments made in the market in mutual funds. I weathered 3 considerable market downturns during that time and still did 3 times what my Social Security account was earning. Social Security earns 1.36% currently; as we type. With just a simple basket of the most conservative Fidelity Mutual Funds you would be currently earning nearly 5.40% or approximately 4 times the Social Security return on the same investment. Opinion taken out of context is one thing. Actual figures is another and that's why Robert Reich had Bill Clinton FOR dealing with the "crisis". Unless it's all a lie and if it is, then, so what ~~~

 

[Pacridge]

Quite the contrary; I don't use the term "problem", you do. I use the term "crisis" just as did the Democrats and their President and Vice President did prior to President George W. Bush. Remember Bill Clinton and Al Gore? "Crisis", said they. Senator Kennedy stood on the Senate floor and said "crisis" along with John Kerry and the current Democrat Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Nancy Pelosi used time in the House with Richard Gephart; both using the term "crisis". Brit Hume of Fox News Channel did a collage of nearly two dozen Democrats from the Clinton Era using the term "crisis" in regard to Social Security. It's a great headline grabber. So what? You think saying "problem" makes it smaller and "crisis" makes it bigger? How about the Democrats just realizing that if it is done under a Republican where the credit will go. For 8 years the Democrats said that Social Security faced "crisis" and they said the word. Is that a "problem"? Only if you have changed your words because of politics. To his credit, President Clinton has come out in just the last few weeks and said "crisis" again. I voted for him; once.

I retired young on simple, conservative investments made in the market in mutual funds. I weathered 3 considerable market downturns during that time and still did 3 times what my Social Security account was earning. Social Security earns 1.36% currently; as we type. With just a simple basket of the most conservative Fidelity Mutual Funds you would be currently earning nearly 5.40% or approximately 4 times the Social Security return on the same investment. Opinion taken out of context is one thing. Actual figures is another and that's why Robert Reich had Bill Clinton FOR dealing with the "crisis". Unless it's all a lie and if it is, then, so what ~~~

I don't think the democrats are concerned that they not going to be given credit for the fix. They, just like several in the GOP have noted, the Presidents "fix" doesn't fix anything. So argue about whether it's a crisis or it's a problem or whatever you want as far as language goes. Still doesn't change anything. Taking money out of the system won't fix the system. And borrowing trillions more, 2 trillion according to Cheney, might well have even more negative effects.

 

[Hoot]

I don't think the democrats are concerned that they not going to be given credit for the fix. They, just like several in the GOP have noted, the Presidents "fix" doesn't fix anything.

This concurs with everything I've read about the SS mess. The president's plan will not fix the problem.

And can anyone explain to me why all the outrage about raising the cap of...what is it? $90,000?
Meaning that wages above $90,000 are not subject to any kind of FICA removal?! How is this fair, and why is this considered a raise in taxes?!

If you're making over $90,000 a year, you can afford to have that extra income be taxed for Social Security for the greater good of our nation.

Also, I still maintain, and I've read this in more than one location, that if Bush merely rescinded the tax break he gave to the richest 1% of americans...meaning put their taxes back to where they were under the Clinton administration, that this alone would secure the solvency of Social Security for an additional 75 years!

Where is the outrage?!

 

[Schweddy]

And can anyone explain to me why all the outrage about raising the cap of...what is it? $90,000?
Meaning that wages above $90,000 are not subject to any kind of FICA removal?! How is this fair, and why is this considered a raise in taxes?!

If you're making over $90,000 a year, you can afford to have that extra income be taxed for Social Security for the greater good of our nation.

Folks making 90,000+ already consume the most of the tax burden.

If folks were allowed to put in after 90,000 then SS would be required to pay them more when they retire. Nope, not a fix...

I don't make 90k a year, but I damned sure won't want to pay more when I do. Why should folks that work harder and smarter be required to carry more of the burden? It is not fair.

Where is the outrage?!

Wheres the logic?!

 

[Pacridge]

This concurs with everything I've read about the SS mess. The president's plan will not fix the problem.

And can anyone explain to me why all the outrage about raising the cap of...what is it? $90,000?
Meaning that wages above $90,000 are not subject to any kind of FICA removal?! How is this fair, and why is this considered a raise in taxes?!

If you're making over $90,000 a year, you can afford to have that extra income be taxed for Social Security for the greater good of our nation.

Also, I still maintain, and I've read this in more than one location, that if Bush merely rescinded the tax break he gave to the richest 1% of americans...meaning put their taxes back to where they were under the Clinton administration, that this alone would secure the solvency of Social Security for an additional 75 years!

Where is the outrage?!

Where are you getting these numbers? I've seen some articles that say this would solve everything and then I've seen some say this wouldn't even touch the surface of the problem. At times the economics of the whole problem seem rather confusing to me. I'd really like to see something that looks like an honest approach or accounting rather than all this partisan BS.

 

[Hoot]

Where are you getting these numbers? I've seen some articles that say this would solve everything and then I've seen some say this wouldn't even touch the surface of the problem. At times the economics of the whole problem seem rather confusing to me. I'd really like to see something that looks like an honest approach or accounting rather than all this partisan BS.

I don't have any answers to Social Security, but it seems a bit ludicrous to be giving tax breaks to the richest 1% when we have problems like SS and medicare staring us in the face.
If there was even a slim chance that rescinding this tax break would help shore up SS, wouldn't it be the right thing to do?

Folks making 90,000+ already consume the most of the tax burden.

If folks were allowed to put in after 90,000 then SS would be required to pay them more when they retire. Nope, not a fix...

I don't make 90k a year, but I damned sure won't want to pay more when I do. Why should folks that work harder and smarter be required to carry more of the burden? It is not fair.

I've been paying into SS for a number of years, and it looks like I may not see all the money that's due me? So, why should we worry about those making over $90,000 not getting all they've paid in?

I think SS should have a maximum payout cap. Once you reach that point, you don't get additional funds no matter how much you make above $90,000, but the 6.25 FICA is still removed from your paycheck.
This is America...it's a priviledge to live and work here. Part of that priviledge should be helping those less fortunate.
If you're making in the 6 figure range you're prepared to finance a comfortable retirement, unless you're a fool.

Let's say I make $50,000 a year....all of my income is taxed by SS.
But if I make $200,000 a year, less than half of my income is subject to SS withdrawal.

Where's the fairness in that?

I just think it's the right thing to do. If the rich don't like it, then love it or leave it.

 

[Schweddy]

I think SS should have a maximum payout cap. Once you reach that point, you don't get additional funds no matter how much you make above $90,000, but the 6.25 FICA is still removed from your paycheck.
This is America...it's a priviledge to live and work here. Part of that priviledge should be helping those less fortunate.
If you're making in the 6 figure range you're prepared to finance a comfortable retirement, unless you're a fool.

Let's say I make $50,000 a year....all of my income is taxed by SS.
But if I make $200,000 a year, less than half of my income is subject to SS withdrawal.

Where's the fairness in that?

I just think it's the right thing to do. If the rich don't like it, then love it or leave it.

The gov't looks at it exactly the same way. Folks that make over 90,000 would probably careless if they recieve any SS when they retire. At least the majority. To be fair and stay on scale the cap'd it at 90,000. It's more honest than our income tax if you think about it.

Personally, I am offended when people say the rich should pay more. We should all do our FAIR share. Making someone pay more for being successful seems to go against the American spirit.

 

[anomaly]

The gov't looks at it exactly the same way. Folks that make over 90,000 would probably careless if they recieve any SS when they retire. At least the majority. To be fair and stay on scale the cap'd it at 90,000. It's more honest than our income tax if you think about it.

Personally, I am offended when people say the rich should pay more. We should all do our FAIR share. Making someone pay more for being successful seems to go against the American spirit.

The simple answer to SS is to raise the cap above 90,000. And yes, it would solve the problem. Everyone in America receives SS right now when they retire. If you wanna talk about Americans paying 'their fair share' make the rich pay 6.2% of their entire income, not just $90,000 of it. It seems, Vauge, that you think the rich do not receive any SS when they retire. Everyone receives it. The thing is the rich really don't need it. But they get it. I'd support the ceiling being totally removed, since then, as Vauge puts it, the rich would pay their fair share, by paying the same amount as everyone else. And you may want to check yourelf when you say "making someone pay more for being successful...". Are the rich in this country always the more successful? Are they always more skilled? It seems to me that you own beloved President wasn't neccesarily skilled academically, and yet got into Yale. He was just lucky. So, yes, one's being 'skilled' has an impact on the money they make, but a lot of it is just luck. Back to SS, the rich only get what they paid into the system (6.2% of $90,000) in benefits, so I suppose you could make the case that 'since the rich will be paying 6.2% of $300,000 or whatever, they should receive that much back in benefits. But then I could simply ask why? They don't need the money, so give them less. I suppose it all comes down to how you think: Are redistributive policies good or do they simply give money to those who did not earn it? Anyone wanna share their opinion? Let me begin by giving mine: I think that redistributive policies are 'good'. The reason is that, in this country (or any for that matter) I don't think people neccesarily make as much money as they have earned. You want to talk about 'the skillful earning the most', are welders not skilled? Are mechanics not skilled? So perhaps redistributive policies simply give money to people who really have earned it.

 

[gordontravels]

I always find it interesting that some want to insist that the rich pay "their fair share". Then in the same breath then condesend with "they won't need it anyway when they retire". President Bush said just last week that the cap on wages that is paid into Social Security is on the table as well as any other idea that can "make the system stable and safe for future retiring workers". The obstructionists have yet to even acknowledge that the President is willing to open discussions to "any idea that would provide a better way for the system to go".

No, if the cap is raised on wages the system will still pay out more than it takes in. The problem would be job creation. Point in fact, the Luxury Tax that was pushed by Senator Kennedy under President Carter. Taxes priced the luxury boat building business out of business and states like Connecticut and Massachusettes suffered huge job loss. The tax had to be repealed with not a word from the Masachusettes liberal senator. It was proven that tax increases led to not just job loss but to the absence of job creation. It seems that there is a balance between what the rich pay in taxes and what they are willing to put into the economy to create jobs. Poor workers need jobs but, they don't create them.

Look for suggestions about fixing Social Security that would hurt the incumbent President no matter which party he might be from. There is more politics to be used in the movement of government rather than work for the people's concerns. You will find that you friendly mass media will be there to distort the information you receive and that will keep all of us wondering and polarized in our opinion. After all, if you are getting your information from sound bites, they are coming from false teeth ~~~

 

[Pacridge]

The reason is that, in this country (or any for that matter) I don't think people neccesarily make as much money as they have earned. You want to talk about 'the skillful earning the most', are welders not skilled? Are mechanics not skilled? So perhaps redistributive policies simply give money to people who really have earned it.

I think you're making a very valid point here. The conservative movement has been putting forth this idealism for years that people get what they earn in life. To an extent that's true. But only to an extent. Wealthy people, extremely wealthy people esp., don't usually earn their money. Their born with it. The conservative movement used lies and this very logic to repeal the estate tax a few years back. First they they stopped calling it an an estate tax and started calling it a "Death tax" then they went on this media blitz and put out radio and TV ads saying things like "Did you hear the Johnson's are losing the family farm? No!, why? Taxes, Darn taxes. That can't be true, I knew Old man Johnson well and I know for a fact he paid his taxes every year! Well when he passed away last year the family was hit with a huge "DEATH TAX!" (cue sinister music) now the darn government's gonna take away the family farm!" They'd run ads like this even though they knew there was a 2.6 million dollar family farm exemption and according the American Farm Bureau Federation not one single family farm has ever been lost due to estate taxes in the Unites States, ever. When the whole debate was going on Democrats tried to simply raise the estate tax exemption to 8 million then 15 million. No deal. So now people who inherit 2 billion do so with no tax what so ever. Because of the death taxes and the Johnson family farms that weren't being lost in the first place. You got to admit it's pretty hard work iheriting 2 billion dollars. Probably takes effort and smarts.

 

[Schweddy]

They don't need the money, so give them less. I suppose it all comes down to how you think: Are redistributive policies good or do they simply give money to those who did not earn it? Anyone wanna share their opinion? Let me begin by giving mine: I think that redistributive policies are 'good'.

If you ever win the lottery - you pay a messload in taxes. Then, I think you should pay even MORE taxes on top of the taxes that were taxed so that it can then be as if you didn't even win the lottery. Here is your dollar - thanks for playing.

Makes sinse to me - I didn't win it.

You don't need that money - I do.

 

[Pacridge]

If you ever win the lottery - you pay a messload in taxes. Then, I think you should pay even MORE taxes on top of the taxes that were taxed so that it can then be as if you didn't even win the lottery. Here is your dollar - thanks for playing.

Makes sinse to me - I didn't win it.

You don't need that money - I do.

Well you're logic makes sense if that's how it worked. Thankfully that's not how it works. You win the lottery you pay a mess of taxes on your winnings, you keep the rest- end of story. There's no pay and pay and pay. Not unless you're earning and earning and earning.

 

[anomaly]

Actually, I have heard rumors (on here mostly, so I can't really tell if they're true...) that Bush may cut SS benefits for the rich. I was wondering, have any of you heard anything of this rumor? But I don't know, helping the poor just isn't what Bush is all about, is it!

 

[Pacridge]

Actually, I have heard rumors (on here mostly, so I can't really tell if they're true...) that Bush may cut SS benefits for the rich. I was wondering, have any of you heard anything of this rumor? But I don't know, helping the poor just isn't what Bush is all about, is it!

I heard and read some things, quotes last week where he said the 90K limit on withholdings was "on the table." I honestly haven't heard anything about cutting any benefits. Doesn't mean it isn't true, just that I haven't heard it.

 

[Justathought]

I am a new member of Debate Politics and the SS issue is foremost in my political thoughts these days. I have read the posts on this issue and first, I do remember the word "crisis" being thrown out by both the democrats and the republicans in years past. This has been a threat to the people for many years. Second, it is not fair to say the upper 1% of our economic tax payers work the hardest. Too many are out on the golf course while the real workers are back in the office working their fingers to the bone to make sure these people earn 90,000 plus a year. Case in point would be Exon executives who scammed the real workers of their 401K's. Tax payers in the upper 1% already receive tax breaks the middle class could only dream about. Why not stop gap these breaks if they do not want to pay more in the SS system? Why protect the most wealthy at the expense of the real working class?

 

[gordontravels]

I notice that when I mention "job creation" I have no takers in this debate. When you talk business and someone making over 90k per year you are not talking about take home pay. You are talking about gross earnings. Out of that gross, you will pay the expense of running that business: rent, supplies, utilities, insurance, advertising, equipment and equipment replacement, state and local taxes, federal taxes, payroll taxes (1/2 of the SS withholding) and payroll among other things. You will also pay for your own expenses with what is left of your "paycheck".

A few years back I saw the figure that small business provides over 85% of the jobs in this country. Having been a small business owner, I know that I was the one providing the business and I needed employees. When my expenses went up I made adjustments to my business and when something such as a leap in energy costs came along I was still required to compete for my income. I could adjust my prices upward to cover the extra expense but then I had to watch my competition that didn't. I could price myself out of the market and lose even more. Then, instead of adjustments, there were cuts. Employees with not only the loss of payroll but all the extra expense they represent in taxes and insurance were one of the best temporary ways to deal with the higher expenses of the business either inside the organization or outside for personal income. No matter how you look at it, when expenses go up, the owner is the first to take a reduction in pay.

I see Exxon used as an example here but if you count the number of beauty salons and barber shops and then count their employees, Exxon comes in way back there in payroll numbers. Go ahead and take caps off incomes over 90k and lose jobs. This is a certainty. Any comment? How about you folks that are talking about those who earn over 90k not needing it? What do you think comes first; they shut the business down or out goes the guy that sweeps the floors? Just a thought ~~~

 

[Justathought]

I understand what you are saying but you have two issues....take home pay or gross earnings. You also state well the issue of small businesses and the problems they face. The larger issue of Exxon is just as important as the issues you are concerned with as a prior small business owner.

1. The issue of take home pay versus gross earnings is really not the same. Your take home pay is after individual taxes are taken out and your gross earnings are before these deductions happen. If your take home pay ends up to be $90,000 after deductions, your establishment must have made a huge profit. As a small business owner I would not be weeping or concerned of having to lay off an employee because your individual taxes gave you less money for your personal use.

2. If you are dependent on your salary to keep your business alive something is wrong. A small business should have a profit after your salary and employee deductions. You do not pay your employees or their insurance or other benefits from your salary (at least the small business owners I know do not) but this is deducted from your profit scale as is other costs. A small business owner is quite aware of this before hiring other employees let alone attempting to start a small business....if you want a large take home pay for yourself don't hire...if you can settle with a smaller take home pay then hire. If your small business will not make a profit and thus all costs come out of your salary, maybe a small business establishment is not the way to go.

3. As to Exxon, this is directly related to the Bush mumble jumble plan and should be looked at in all its potential failures. Thousands of Exxon employees lost everything through the 401k plan that placed their funds in the stock market....then Exxon stock crashed as a result of scamming and bilking the company of millions. Where is this type of scenario placed in the Bush plan as a probability or a possibility.

 

[Pacridge]

I am a new member of Debate Politics and the SS issue is foremost in my political thoughts these days. I have read the posts on this issue and first, I do remember the word "crisis" being thrown out by both the democrats and the republicans in years past. This has been a threat to the people for many years. Second, it is not fair to say the upper 1% of our economic tax payers work the hardest. Too many are out on the golf course while the real workers are back in the office working their fingers to the bone to make sure these people earn 90,000 plus a year. Case in point would be Exon executives who scammed the real workers of their 401K's. Tax payers in the upper 1% already receive tax breaks the middle class could only dream about. Why not stop gap these breaks if they do not want to pay more in the SS system? Why protect the most wealthy at the expense of the real working class?

I seriously don't know anything about this Exxon or Exon thing. I think you mean Enron?

I agree with your assessment that well paid doesn't always mean smartest. Certainly not hardest working. But as the President said in many stump speeches during the past election. "You can't tax rich folks, you know what they do, they dodge and you pay anyway." You know rich folk like him and Cheney. So no point in even trying to tax them, they're just going to dodge anyway. Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[Justathought]

I would like to offer my apologies....I did mean Enron and not Exon. I do believe what happened to those people at Enron should be remembered though before signing on to the Bush plan. Thanks for informing me of my mistake.