"...a measly 4%..." (SS contributions)

And look how the Democrats are reacting. Rush making the point on his program. Of course, it's not "4%"...It's 4% of the 12%....that's one-third...that's 33%...not a "measly 4%"....But of course, there is no one there to challenge his BS...

:shrug:

"4%" of what?

2% of a total of 6.25% FICA rate.

I thought everybody knew that 4% was the amount Bush was asking for in his "private accounts"... I should have clarified.

People know when they are being scammed and this is why bush* poll #'s suck on SS.

That's what we should call it. Guaranteed Income Insurance. Because the percentages aren't the point, the purpose of the program is the point.

contribute which is 67% of your current contribution. The employer provided 6.2% won't change (at least as far as the non-existent plan says).

On Randi Rhodes show last night Sam Seder took a call from a guy who brought up a similar point. He was a subcontractor and self-employed which menas he paid the 6.2% employee part AND the 6.2% employER part. He said he made around $80,000 which means he paid the 12.4% contribution on every penny he earned. He said contrast that with a CEO that makes $10,000,000 and that guy only contributed 6.2% of $90,000 (the current limit) and his employer picked up the other 6.2%.

So the self-employed subcontractor paid $9,920 into SS but the CEO paid in only $5,580!

...the self-employed contractor being forced to go into debt and possibly tax default and fines due to poor accounting for the obligation. So penalties, interest and other threats get logged against the self-employed person and now we have the true rational behind the republican push to make bankruptcy for individuals more difficult.

start a small business. One more nail in the coffin for small businesses.

which is 6.2%. That's why he goes back to his old hackneyed line of "it's your money".

Got it. I'm just quibbling on numbers. The privatization plan is a non-starter for me.

which is about two-thirds... of your total contribution.

its 2% of your 6.4% contribution. If the employer doesn't kick in on their part of the 6.4% matching contribution...than its still 2% of your 6.4% contribution. That's still too much!

Where are you coming up with 4%??

still not a "measly 4%" as Rush suggested.

% should really be read as "percentage points".

Your quoting liars, who'll say anything to get their lies across as "fact".

The amount, whether it adds up or not is completely irrelevant, its ALL based on lies...but if you want to waste your time on bullshit lies and them changing the numbers tomorrow to confuse, it serves no one, but to legitimize their arguments.

We can't let them get a dime for their privatization.

that is true. It is semantics.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Retirementandwills/Createaplan/P103676.asp

A bill that has already been unveiled in Congress would allow individuals to divert 3% of pay up to the first $10,000 of earnings, and 2% after that up to the payroll tax threshold. However, the bipartisan Kolbe-Boyd bill also includes a tax hike to pay for transition costs, as well as a phased-in increase in the top wage level subject to the payroll tax. Bush has said flatly that he opposes a payroll tax hike.

Currently, employees and employers each pay 6.2% of a worker's pay, a total of 12.4% of gross income. Withholding stops at $90,000 in 2005, capping an individual's deduction at $5,580. Under the commission model that Bush is said to favor (dubbed Model 2), 4% of gross income could go into a private account. The remaining 8.4% would go into the existing Social Security system to pay the benefits of current retirees.

So you see, bush* wants YOU to gamble 67% of YOUR contribution to SS in his ponzi scheme. You are right in that bush*co is obfuscating when they say 4% and not 4 PERCENTAGE POINTS.

and again I am agreeing with everyone on the hatred for this plan...just realize I am a mathematician and I'm just quibbling math...

"4% of gross income could go into a private account. The remaining 8.4% would go into the existing Social Security system to pay the benefits of current retirees."

So the correct answer is 4 percentage points out of 12.4 (4 + the "remaining 8.4 percentage points) percentage points. So its around 33% of the combined contributions for FICA.

not total income. If they want to permit people to add 4% extra into a private account, then we could legitmately say 4%....But we are talking about percentages of Social Security contributions... It's semantics, as someone pointed out. It's a fraud. And another lie.

of course, there is no plan. And it would be pretentious to assume they would put forth a "plan" that asked the employer to contribute a like amount...

income to the Gov't but the CEO doesn't. It's a small victory. Since it is deducted from your gross earnings does it work out to a do9llar for dollar tax break though?

;)


But, it wasn't far off.

...but at the end the holder gets to claim only 18% of what it earns.

This plan guts the fund 32.3% of available revenue contributions immediately and forces the system into crisis right off the bat. The tax payers including social security recipients will be forced to pay the difference. How long do you think that will be politically tolerated?

Similar plans around the world (Chile, U.K., others) also require a 23% or high administrative cost which the presidents proposal is shoving under the rug, similar to the way they deceived all of us about privatized Medicare. This must be exposed and brought out in the sunshine, no seven hour ramming of a congressional vote on this plan/bill!!!!

<on edit> Actually the number I first heard was 5% which fits because if you add 1% (which is 25% or one quarter of the 4%) you have the number with administration.

The republicans know they can't win with that word, that's why they use "Private Accounts". 401K are private accounts, and one can invest in any time they like.

It's Privatization, the terminology is important, they know it's lost with that word.

So they can dismantle and destroy Social Security down the line. If it takes twenty years they don't care, to the republicans it's a matter of getting the tiniest amount now, so they can destroy SS through the courts (that they control) later.

By simply saying...well, if one can invest 4% than why not 50%... and so on, until SS is complete destroyed and the republicans wet dream is accomplished and they will owe it all to their hero, George Bush, who was able to lie his way into getting his foot through the door.

That's really all the reoublicans want right now, is to just get their foot in the door.

We can't allow them an inch...they WILL destroy it. We must not compromise on Social Security to the same party who despises it and has vowed to destroy it for the past seventy years.

I'm self employed. The tax is 12.4% for me, period.

The only difference is that half of that is deductible from my income tax, but other than that, nothing.

I'm not sure how, or if, it would affect self employed taxation at all.

However, I'm not counting on a penny from Social Security, I'm on my own and I've always known it...But I still want and will continue to fight for hands off SS for future generations.

I'll probably end up in some food line at retirement age. (If there will even be any).

Bush and the Repubs are not permitted to destroy it.

(I attended one of his PA shill stops), it would be 4% of the total. So, you would still pay the 12.4%, but only 8.4% would "go towards" the guaranteed benefits system, while the rest (the 4%) would go towards your "personal account." Needless to say, this causes the trust fiund to be expended a third faster (since only 8.4% would go into the pay-as-you-go funds rather than 12%), and it would mean an additional third deduction in your guaranteed benefits (since the guaranteed benefits system, which must match disbursements with income would be receiving only 8.4% rather than 12.4%). Now, Santorum outlined the initial problem as follows: in 2042 (according to projections), the trust fund will be exhausted, and - because disbursements must match incoming funds + trust fund, either you will take a 30% drop in guaranteed benefits, or workers will have to have the SS deductions raised to 18-20% (rather than 12.4%). The "lines" must be equal: disbursements must match incoming funds. So, if we do nothing, people will start to lose 30% in guaranteed benefits at that time. If you take out the 4%, you will see a drop of 40% in guaranteed benefits (that is, a third more than 30%), which is supposed to be made up in the non-guaranteed funds provided by the "compounding" 4% personal account. This is dubious on its face, never mind that you might lose money with the 4% - up to and including everything you've put in to the personal account. But the personal account plan has other difficulties outlined above: if there is a third reduction in the incoming funds, then the trust fund will be exhausted BEFORE 2042 (since the trust fund will have to make up the difference between the 12.4% incoming and the 8.4% incoming) AND you will definitely take an additional hit on guaranteed benefits. The personal accounts scheme, quite simply, does not address the problem that Santorum laid out...in fact it exacerbates it.

Thanks..

...every paycheck. You may not understand that this is what Bush wants to take:

paycheck amount less the 12.4% of which he wants to take away from the Social Security revenue stream 33.2% (that's the 4 percentage points here) plus they plan to take another percentage point or 25% of that figure for administrative costs.

Thus, it will look like this for a $90,000 salary:

$90,000 less (7.4% into the current social security revenue stream) $6,660 less (4.0% to set aside into private accounts) $3,600 less (1% for administration) $900

See that adds up to $11,160 total half paid by the wage earner and the other half paid by the employer, but $4,500 or 40.3% just gets sucked away. I still don't quite understand how this is treated as a loan, resulting in just 18% of the final amount at retirement actually being owned by the investor. It is such a fraud!

only, i think we should just raise taxes a "measly 4%" on the top tax bracket, to help with our social security solvency issues (as well as to make our gargantuan budget deficit more manageable)

it's a measly 4%, rushbo, from the most wealthy people in the nation, who aren't exactly hurting to pay their heating bills. no big fucking deal.

Investing four percent of ones SS tax.

If my total FICA were $4,000 for the year that would be an investment of 160 dollars in a private account--useless.

Somebody is smoke screening for sure.

180

The smoke. If they say four percentage points taken from twelve point four percentage points then it takes on a whole new meaning.

The four per cent is the smoke. Confuse divide conquer. The Republican way.

180

and it should be "sold" as such. Why do these people have to lie cheat and steal?

180

when a 4% tax increase on a 20% tax rate is incurred.

They are going to spin it which ever way makes their argument. In a way that's a fair use of spin, and more importantly you're not ever going to get them to stop. The only thing you can do is spin it your way for your arguments as well. Nobody is going to maintain a consistent perspective across their issues, so don't bother asking for it. Just do it the same.

So, this is a huge 1/3 reduction in Social Security.
And, an increase in tax rates from 20% to 24%, is a mere 4% increase.

Good for the goose-steppers, good for the gander.

Currently every employee pays a payroll tax of 6.2% of their income up to $90,000. The employer matches that amount. The privatization plan would allow individuals to divert 4% of their income up to $90,000 into a private account. This would be shifted on an incremental basis over a few years. So if you make $50,000 you could put $2000 into a private account.

But when you reach retirement age your SS benefits would be much less and you would convert your "private" account into an annuity that would pay you a fixed amount until you die. The annuity balance, if there is any reverts bact to the Govt.

So you take a risk, pay fees to Wall Street and the Insurance companies, and when you die your survirors get, well, nothing. Oh, whatever survivor benefits your family might have received under the current system will be greatly reduced.

This is yet another Corporate gift and is not intended to help everyday people.

Except the 4% that they speak of is taken from 100% of the Social Security fund. We should not confuse that with 100% of income. It is being taken from SS contributions - not total income.

But apparently Limbaugh (and I've heard this disinformation floating around) is saying that it's 4% of the 6.2% which would be $768.8 if someone made $50,000. They're minimizing the impact and deliberately trying to deceive. Gee, Bush and his minions deceive us??

remember 1/3 of Social Security payments go to survivors, 1/3 goes to disabled and 1/3 to retirees.

So....if you take 1/3 out (4% of income would be 1/3 of FICA payments) out, you would get nothing when you retire as the other 2/3rds (8%) would be needed for survivors and disabled.