![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
It's Broke; Fix It
Posted by Stephen Green · 1 December 2004
Two op-eds today in favor of Social Security reform. First up, John Kasich: How do we get out of this mess? To preserve the system for the long term, we must change the way first-time benefits are calculated. Growth in initial benefits should be linked to the consumer price index - not to wage growth. Sensible, perhaps - but any kind of "cut" in benefits is almost certainly doomed to failure. You and I know that an eightfold increase is hardly a cut, but that's not how it would play in Washington and the MSM. Next up, Chile's José Piñera explains his country's successful changeover to an investment program: Chile's Social Security Reform Act of 1980 allowed current workers to opt out of the government-run pension system financed by a payroll tax and instead contribute to a personal retirement account. What determines those workers' retirement benefit is the amount of money accumulated in their personal account during their working years. Neither the workers nor the employers pay a payroll tax. Nor do these workers collect a government-financed benefit. The most interesting thing about these two columns is that they both appear in today's New York Times. And that can mean only one thing: The election truly is over. Where were they on Social Security when John Kerry was dodging the issue? Comments
What I find incredible is that, in the decade or so since reestablishing full democracy, Chile has managed to catch up to the US quite handily in regard to standard of living and economic and political freedoms. Are they now overtaking us in public policy? Maybe General Pinochet deserves the last laugh after all. Posted by: D at December 1, 2004 10:49 AMWould attaching to the price index be effected if and when inflation returns? Posted by: k at December 1, 2004 11:34 AMsorry off topic but the ny Add to these two columns the column by George Will regarding Alan "the Undertaker (hat tip: Ayn Rand)" Greenspan as a possible new Treasury Secretary, and you might be onto something. Posted by: PDS at December 1, 2004 12:08 PMColumns like this vividly illustrate the opportunity cost of giving regular space to Paul Krugman. Posted by: Crank at December 1, 2004 01:56 PMWhat's really ironic is that if I remember correctly chile's plan was invented at University of Chicago. Posted by: Amelia at December 1, 2004 03:50 PM"Where were they on Social Security when John Kerry was dodging the issue?" Before we go off the rails and drool over Chile, it was a dictatorship. It's easy to enact reform when you're a dictator because no one can oppose you. That's why the Social Security changeover went so smoothly, because they could essentially enact a pure plan and not give a damn about the political fallout. That won't happen in the US. While I back privatization, when I look at the scare mess the Medicare prescription drug plan was I fear what US politics is going to do with a privatization of Social Security and what kinds of extra, plan-ruining atrocities will find its way into the final plan. Posted by: MrProliferation at December 2, 2004 07:14 AMwww.american-patrol.blogspot.com I like the idea, but at the same time, why do I need the government to set up a Roth Ira? Posted by: American Patrol at December 2, 2004 08:04 AMA-P, you don't -- if it's the money the government is already letting you keep from your paycheck. But if it's the money the government confiscates from your paycheck on a regular basis, any reform's gotta be done by the government. Of course, a lot of folks even my age are already writing off all that FICA money as a lost bet. Woulda been nice if we'd had any choice about the bet, is all. Posted by: McGehee at December 2, 2004 08:19 AMI hate to sound like a liberal, but the current system is unfair. Payroll taxes place a heavier burden, by percentage of gross wages, on those that come in under the annual wage limit of $87,900. The fix is easy, however untenable politically. Cut the Social Security portion of FICA to %5.00 and raise the wage limit to twice or better it's current level. Maybe $175,000 or even $200,000. Posted by: MW2 at December 2, 2004 02:15 PM...and then means-test benefits! Posted by: David Mercer at December 3, 2004 06:05 PM...and then means-test benefits! The baby boomers aren't going to give up one red cent of their entitlement, even as it breaks the backs of the Gen Xers who will have to support them. It doesn't matter which party is in control. There will be plenty of pandering to the boomers regardless of whether it's good policy. The boomers are just too damned important as a voting bloc for anyone to risk causing them any pain. Someone will have to sacrifice, but it won't be them. I don't expect to see any of the $50K plus I've paid in to date. However, if they raise my payroll taxes or reduce my future benefits just to keep the "me generation" from whining, it's open season. My parents will wonder why I've put them on an ice floe with a 2 liter bottle of vodka. Posted by: lobbygow at December 4, 2004 06:58 AM...and then means-test benefits! Keep your muddy lunchhooks off my dadgum benefits! I had 15% of my wages confiscated for nearly 50 years. That's MY money, Buckaroo. What are my chances of getting it all back? Posted by: Larry at December 4, 2004 03:23 PMThe UK's state pension is linked to RPI and not to incomes. It's little wonder that it's closer to solvency than any other country in Europe. |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Steve blogs more before 9 a.m. than most bloggers do all day."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |