Step 1: Fund SS from the general tax fund (�old� Europe) v. the payroll tax (U.S.). Step 2: Put the Pentagon on a payroll tax like SS. Step 3. Convert the war tax to private accounts. Step 4: Antiwar, disabled and senior activists hold town hall meetings explaining this tax proposal to the population. Step 5. I switch to decaf.
Seth Sandronsky
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:37:52 -0700 From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: bush & SS
I wrote: >>Insurance programs are transfer programs. If I have a fire, = the fire insurance company pays me by transferring money from all the = folks who pay premia who don't have fires.<< =20 David Shemano wrote:> If SS is insurance against poverty in old age, how = come people who are not in poverty in old age receive SS?< =20 Michael Perelman writes:>If you use a means testing, SS becomes a = welfare program, an entitlment. What happens to entitlements?< =20 right. In addition, the SS method of payment of benefits is extremely = simple, making its administration costs extremely low, especially = compared to the private investment accounts costs that the Bushpeople = push. That is, it's an extremely efficient way for society to pool = resources. =20 =20 It's true that a lot of non-poor receive SS benefits. But a lot of = people who are non-poor get hit by the forces that could easily push = them into poverty, such as catastrophic illness and soaring medication = costs. SS provides a "safety net" which helps prevent these from causing = a serious and permanent descent into the vicious circle of poverty.=20 =20 Further, for many of the richer folks, SS benefits are mere "pin money." = But it's simpler and more efficient to pay these benefits to them. It = also encourages majority support for the program as Michael P. and Joel = B. stress.=20 =20 Doug writes: >Not in the same way - insurance is about financial = provision against quantifiable but limited risk. Everyone who hits 65...66...67 will draw = SS. How many people draw on their fire insurance.< =20 SS isn't insurance against being old. Rather, it's insurance against = being forced to eat dog food while old. It also represents a bolster = that makes defined-benefit pensions, IRAs, 401ks, etc. bearable. =20 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine=20
