home

McCain (And Joe The Plumber)'s Idea To Privatize Social Security

This story caught my eye:

Social Security benefits for 50 million people will go up 5.8 percent next year, the largest increase in more than a quarter century.

Juxtaposed with this:

2008 is currently tracking as the 10th worst first half year performance for the Dow with a decline of -14.46% YTD as of Friday's close (7/27).

Since 7/27, the Dow has melted down. But John McCain supported privatizing Social Security:

It seems Joe the Plumber wants 4 more years of the last 8, with social security privatization. [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Polls - 10/16 | Not Out of the Woods Yet? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    My plumber is a hippy liberal (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    and proud of it. Perhaps I should plant him at a McCain rally to ask some pointy questions.

    Oh yeah and PS...I want Al Gore's lockbox, cause my retirement is shrinking and I am going to need my SS.

    Don't do that.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    a hippy liberal working man at a McCain rally?....if he doesn't get locked up, some of the loons that attend those rallies are likely to pound him.

    Parent
    not likely (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    he carries a big wrench.

    Parent
    I can't believe (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    that there are people doing opp. research on the guy.

    but by golly, this man is linked to Charlies Keating! hasn't paid his taxes for last year, agrees with privatizing social security, has his name spelt wrong on the voting rolls, so had he registered this year the GOP would be challenging his vote in Ohio, and Florida (great to be able to put a face on that problem now)

    I mean they learned all this already in 12 hrs! whats after the next 12?

    I went from being sick of him, to wanting to know just how much are we going to learn about him.

    though I am still sick of hearing Joe the Plumber.

    McCain's initial introduction (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:01:18 PM EST
    of "Joe the Plumber" amused me.  If being bumped up into a higher tax bracket was going to cause "Joe the Plumber" to be unable to hire [additional?] employees, I have little faith in his business management skills.

    Health care costs - maybe.  Any additional cost related to being an actual Employer merits some consideration.  But "Joe the Plumber" being bumped into a higher tax bracket?  Simultaneously pathetic and ridiculous.

    Should be called "Joe the Strawman".

    Parent

    What is the difference (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    between a $5000 dollar health insurance expense and a $5000 tax expense on the net income statement? They are the same equal $5000 of expense.

    I don't understand how people can say health care is a legitimate "additional cost" but taxes are not. It makes no sense at all.

    Ask yourself if you as an employee only had to pay more in taxes if you would have more in disposable income. The answer is no.

    The same hold true for an employer but in his case he has less disposable income for his business, so he can't afford to do certain things in a bad economy like say keep employees on the payroll that don't have much to do because the economy is bad. Gees.

    Parent

    I'm not sure I understand (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    we need to cut corporate taxes so corporations will have enough money to keep unprofitable people on the payroll?  Really?

    Parent
    I'm talking about (none / 0) (#32)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:40:51 PM EST
    small businesses who would be subject to the Obama tax increase not mega corporations.

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:42:06 PM EST
    so we need to cut taxes for small businesses so they can afford to keep unprofitable employees on the payroll?

    Parent
    Well it just stands to reason (none / 0) (#38)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    that the more money a business has the better able they are to keep otherwise profitable employees on the payroll that they have invested training into. No business likes laying off trained and valuable employees. I mean that should be a no brainer to anyone to understand.

    Additionally with more more money a business can accelerate promotion to 'try' to bring business volume back up, or they can add additional products or services both which require capital and cash flow. Taxes take away from capital and cash flow in the same way that any other business expense would.

    You know last night I got comments like yours from people who never ran a business but think they know all about it. It was like people telling a commercial pilot how to fly a plane when they themselves never flew a plane. There are so many things they don't know that they don't know but does that stop them from thinking they know it all? Sadly no.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:24:04 PM EST
    How do you know that I've never run a business, out of curiosity?  In fact, I do run a business.  That's why I get to sit here and comment on blogs, because I'm the boss.

    Tell me, since I can always use advice on how to run my business better, why is it so critical that I retain "trained and valuable employees" even if they're not actually making me any money?  If you don't make me money, you're not all that valuable in my book.  The idea that the government should cut my taxes so that I can retain unprofitable employees on my payroll is just gibberish to me.  Why wouldn't I get rid of them anyway, and have even higher profits as a result?

    Of course there are any number of things a business can do with extra capital, and some of them are worth cutting taxes in order to encourage.  But retaining unprofitable employees on the payroll wouldn't seem to be one of them.  That's why I questioned your original comment.

    Parent

    Well maybe I just (none / 0) (#61)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:39:22 PM EST
    value good smart hardworking people who I have trained and know my business more than you value those people in your business. Maybe I realize from experience that those types of people don't come easy and I not only value them for what they contribute to my business but value them and their families who I have come to know.

    So when I have to layoff good people it is not an easy thing to do. I really have to struggle with the pull between the bottom line and the investment in human resources and the personal relationship.

    You on the other hand think otherwise. It's your business. It just seems I value people more than you who are strictly an expense to you.

    Parent

    It is baffling to me (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    that you think we should set public policy based on considerations such as these.

    Let's say I run a cold-hearted business where I instantly fire anyone who isn't helping the bottom line.  And let's say you run a more compassionate business where you value loyalty and keep smart people around even if they're not helping your company's profitability.

    Maybe that's great of you, but are you really arguing that we ought to cut taxes so that people like you can continue to keep unprofitable workers on the payroll?  Is that really a good enough reason for the federal government to run a deficit?  

    Parent

    I never argued (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    either today or last night for a cut in taxes. What I argued about was not raising taxes on small business owners who make $250K plus and that it could adversely affect their business and ultimately put people out of work which would be counter productive to both the economy's goal of keeping people employed and increasing the tax base through employed people which would in fact contribute to decreasing the deficit. That is what I was arguing.

    As for me considering keeping employees who may cut into my bottomline in down times I have to consider the cost of replacing those employees when times get good again. Depending on the length and severity of the downturn it may cost me more to replace them (training and business familiarity) when times get good again than it would have to keep them around during the downturn. Factor in the compassion dividend and good karma and I am willing to take a reasonable hit to not have to go through the aggravation of rehiring and retraining someone who may not workout or someone who may move on quickly as opposed to keeping someone who has been with me for years and is a stable employee. Many business owners never come to that realization. Of course if someone has a business that largely requires low skilled positions like construction or landscape, or light manufacturing that may not be a factor with most of their employees.

    Parent

    I suggest you (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:44:48 PM EST
    familiarize yourself with the differences in taxation between S-corporations and C-corporations.

    Then get back to me.

    Parent

    I don't think (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    Obama is distinguishing between C or S corps or sole proprietor. Is he?

    S corps flow through so they will be hit by his tax. Owners of C corps will also be hit by his tax on personal income unless of course they want to leave it in the C corp and be taxed on it and then be taxed on it again when they take it out at a latter date as personal income - in other words double taxation.

    Now was their a point you were trying to make?

    Parent

    The point is (none / 0) (#43)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:12:08 PM EST
    that small business, that is the entity itself, generally don't pay taxes.  To say that Obama's proposal of increasing the individual income tax on those making over $250K is pretty far removed from any discussion about business finance.

    Let's say you own a small plumbing business, for example, organized as Pepe's Plumbing Inc.  You have 10 employees. You are the sole shareholder.  The business doesn't pay income tax because it is passed through to you.  Now, if you are lucky enough to pay yourself more than $250K, you might pay some more income tax.  But that tax is on you.  And if you choose to only pay yourself $249K, you won't.  Your business exists on its own, either way.

    Parent

    BS. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    small business, that is the entity itself, generally don't pay taxes.
    S-corps don't, themselves, pay corporate income taxes - those taxes get paid by the owner as personal income. C-corps do pay corporate income tax.

    Now, if you have some data that shows that small biz's are generally S-corps, I'd love to see it.

    Parent

    Sorry but you have no (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    idea what you are talking about. First of all this is not about businesses paying taxes it is about personal income - a fact that you had wrong in a previous post.

    Secondly if I only paid myself $249K then I would have to be a C Corp and would be subject to double taxation.

    If I was a S corp or a sole proprietor then I could not just pay myself $249K and leave the rest in the business to avoid the additional tax because that is not how the business is structured. You can't hide taxable money in the business in those two entities because all profit is taxed as personal income whether you write a check to yourself or leave it in the business checking account - all net profit is your profit and is taxed as income.

    Parent

    I guess that (none / 0) (#65)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    I'll have to write to my law school and ask for a refund.

    Parent
    The easier way to do this (none / 0) (#67)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 03:10:19 PM EST
    is to link to an article that I just found.  It pretty much lays out what I was trying to say.

    LINK

    Parent

    So you've come (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    to the conclusion that health care is not free, and that one has to either pay for it directly or pay for it through taxes so that the government can provide it?  That is obvious.

    What does this have to do with anything?

    Parent

    I wasn't talking about (none / 0) (#41)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    the cost of health care specifically. I was responding to Fabian's post which distinguished between a tax expense and a health insurance expense as if they had different effects on the ability to employ people which they don't, they are both expenses. Please follow the thread discussion as posted.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:14:12 PM EST
    you can pay it as a tax, or pay it as a health care expense.  Either way, we as a society have decided, for the most part, that everyone should be covered.

    Parent
    The differnce is that if we (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    have single payer health care, which I support, the tax will be on everyone not just businesses. And that is how it should be.

    Parent
    Why would it be on (none / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    businesses?  It is a proposed increase in the individual income tax.

    Parent
    No plumbing license (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    Today it was revealed that Joe doesn't have a plumbing license.

    This is what happens when the GOP tries to put together a scam using regular people.

    If Joe wasn't a GOP plant then he should curse the day that he ever met up with the McCain crowd.

    Parent

    Well, he's working along side with the (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    owner of the biz who is licensed. Apparently that's perfectly legal, at least where hes' been working.

    Parent
    But he also lied about belonging to the union (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:30:03 PM EST
    on his Facebook page.

    Dingo ate my baby!

    Parent

    Did he really? (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    Love to see that, gotta link?

    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#62)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    that I could find.

    I'm not sure why the NYT would quote a union manager who has absolutely zero social relationship to Joe about Joe's supposed social networking webpage anyway.

    Also the NYT has this wrong as well:

    Turns out that "Joe the Plumber," as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night's third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber.
    Joe never said he ran a plumbing business, far from it.

    Parent
    And as we (none / 0) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:15:07 AM EST
    now know it's not legal in his area to be practicing plumbing without a license.

    Parent
    Apparently (none / 0) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    that's not true.  He IS required to have a license in his area.

    Parent
    I'm a small business person and I hate (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by esmense on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    the Republicans for peddling economic nonsense that benefits large corporations by getting out their tiny violins and weeping over the imaginary plight of small business.

    How can income taxes affect phoney Joe's ability to hire? You pay income taxes on profits - AFTER EXPENSES LIKE LABOR. If Joe's business isn't generating enough business and income to justify hiring an employee he has problems entirely separate from the issue of income taxes. One problem could be that the market he is working in simply can't support his business. A likely problem is too few potential customers with enough disposable income to use his services. In that case "spreading the wealth around" in terms of economic stimulus may be exactly what his business needs.

    But after your (none / 0) (#31)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:37:32 PM EST
    expenses your net profit is going to be less with higher taxes. Any good business person runs their business to acheive two things. One is a net margin of profit and the second is a net dollar amount of profit which is based on the combined net margin and gross sales. Taxes eat into the net profit.

    Anyone who doesn't run their business that way does not know how to run a business properly.

    When you add an additional tax expense to a business in bad economic times you must adjust your overhead to acheive your business goals. The percentage of tax becomes an expense that you can't cut so you have to cut in other non-fixed expense areas. Employees are one of those areas and happen to be one of the most costly areas which is why we are seeing so many layoffs now. additional taxes are only going to increase layoffs.

    Parent

    You hire employees to increase earnings (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by esmense on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    At least, good business people do. Decisions about hiring have to be justified by demand. Will hiring allow you to increase earnings by producing and selling more products or services? Reach a broader market? Etc. A job IS NOT A CHARITY. (As Republicans always imply when they say that business owners "create" jobs. NO. Market demand creates jobs. Employers hire employees to help them meet and exploit that demand.) Salaries don't come out of an owner's personal income, and every single employee's salary has to be justified by what it contributes to the bottom line -- the point of having employees is to INCREASE the earnings of the business and therefore increase the owner's personal income.

    If the demand for your product decreases, because of market condidtions, changes in the market that you didn't anticipate, or other miscalculations on your part, you lay people off.

    Joe the Plumber, if he decides to hire another plumber to help him in his work, will do so because it means the company can do more work. And, Joe will pay his new employee a salary that allows him, Joe, to make some money off the work the employee does.

    If, in a market with strong and growing demand for his services, Joe lets his employee go because his personal income taxes went up, how is he saving money? He's not. He's just limiting his ability to make money.


    Parent

    I should add here (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by esmense on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    If times aren't good, and demand for services drop, Joe will layoff his employee BECAUSE THERE IS NOW LESS DEMAND. That will, of course, mean less personal income which most likely will mean less taxes owed.  

    Parent
    If you are running (none / 0) (#37)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:49:10 PM EST
    a small business organized as an S-corporation (or some time of partnership), your business isn't paying any income taxes.  Earned income is passed through to the owners.

    Parent
    You are so off base as to (none / 0) (#42)
    by Pepe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    the taxes in question. Obama wants to tax personal income above 250,000.

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    personal income tax.  What did you think I said?  We are talking two different languages, I think.

    Parent
    Another (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 12:16:33 AM EST
    home run esmense

    Parent
    SS privatization (1.00 / 5) (#7)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    Obama also supports privatization of Social Security.

    Or did during the primaries, anyway. Lord only knows what he is saying this week.

    Simply false (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    Please don't tell falsehoods here.

    Parent
    Give me a citation (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by eric on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    or I am going to troll rate you.  I am pretty sure Obama supports no such think and you are making this up.

    Parent
    Yeah, it's false. (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    Obama did run some ads talking about how Social Security is in danger and needs to be fixed, which has been a point of contention.

    But he never supported privatization.


    Parent

    You might troll rate him, but (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    BTD can erase you.

    Parent
    Completely wrong (none / 0) (#16)
    by abdiel on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    Obama is very much against privatizing Social Security and he says so at every chance.  

    You might not like his alternative, such as automatically enrolling employees or taxing the rich to make up the difference.  But saying he supports privatization is just wrong.

    BTW, it's a bit unfair to criticize McCain over Social Security privatization just because of one bad year.  But McCain would know better than Obama about that - Obama's only been saving money in a 401(k) since 2006 while McCain has seen the change in the stock market since the 1960s.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:26:29 PM EST
    it's a bit unfair to criticize McCain over Social Security privatization just because of one bad year.  But McCain would know better than Obama about that - Obama's only been saving money in a 401(k) since 2006 while McCain has seen the change in the stock market since the 1960s.

    No matter what the market has done since 1960, ups or downs, that in no way dictates what will happen today or next year.  Market forces are volatile, and we can NOT control them all.


    Parent

    Hasn't anyone (none / 0) (#2)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    busted Joe yet.

    He's such an obvious Republican plant. The odor is suffocating.

    Joe is turning out to be an obvious plant (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    by the McCain campaign.  That's reason enough to not listen to him.

    Of course, there was no reason to listen to him anyway, seeing as how he isn't registered to vote in the first place.  

    Re: you comment last night BTD (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 11:53:56 AM EST
    An old family friend and lawyer says that he considers being a lawyer is a bit like being a plumber.

    Carry on. . .

    A fair comparison (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    We lawyers make sure things run smoothly, that troublesome clogs and backups get washed away, and that sh*t doesn't accumulate in places its unwanted.

    That, and when you need our services, it's often at the strangest hours, in the most dire circumstances, and there is no substitute for a good one.

    Parent

    People parrot these right wing talking points (none / 0) (#15)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    because lots of Americans feel disempowered by our government.  "Of the people, by the people, for the people" is our birthright, yet we continually see Congress make decisions that promote the rich over the rest of us, and that provide welfare for the top and bottom classes at the expense of the middle class.  We are desperate for leadership that represents us more fully and honestly.  So we look for people who we think are like us, who care about us and/or who will provide leadership that benefits us.  That's what Obama and Hillary's popularity is about, and unfortunately, it's also why Palin & McCain can engage their base.

    What we need to do as the majority party is pay attention to the needs and wishes of those people who would vote for Palin just because they're convinced the rest of us hurt them or act against their values.  By paying attention to their wishes, I don't mean giving them what they want.  I mean responding to them in ways that clarify how our shared values can help us find solutions.  Joe Plumber doesn't realize that he and his family actually can't survive economically when millions of seniors and disabled people can't afford homes, food, etc.  His income is dependent on a stable economy, reasonable home values, reasonable interest rates, etc.  But he's listening to right wing sound bites because we're not talking with him.  And the problem is, people realize that the rich have just sucked up the profits and benefits from a good economy, but when Wall Street falters and real estate is depressed, the rest of us have to pay for the liability.  In addition to that skimming by the super rich we've seen throughout our lives, the right wing now claims the market problem was caused in part by Dem policies forcing banks to led to low income minorities who can't make their payments.  What's a plumber to believe?

    In reality, Republican policies have hurt all of us.  We have common ground there with the people who disagree with liberals.  Obama put it best in his response to McCain's lie about Obama's supposed support of partial birth abortions in the debate:  

    "...I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there's an exception for the mother's health and life, and this did not contain that exception."

    Followed by:

    "This is an issue that -- look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to -- to reconcile the two views.  But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that's where we can find some common ground, because nobody's pro-abortion."  <my emphasis>

    That's the kind of conversation that breaks down the great divide and mitigates right wing divisive tactics that result in litmus tests, Us vs. Them mentality, and low info citizens voting against their own interests by electing politicians like Bush, McCain and Palin on single issue hot button items like abortion, gay rights, and especially, our responsibility to pay taxes to keep our country going.  


    I really can't believe that Joe the Plumber (none / 0) (#17)
    by steviez314 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    is related to Charles Keating, but if that's true, it has renewed my faith in a just and loving God.

    I read... (none / 0) (#22)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    ...over at Politico (in the comments) that he isn't related to Keating, but rather related to someone with close ties to Keating.  

    Still and all, it sure raises questions as to whether or not he is a GOP plant.  

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure Rove's behind it all. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:06:55 PM EST
    I think the news channels (none / 0) (#54)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    should fully investigate this.

    D'OH

    - John Mccain



    Parent
    Doesn't sound very plantish to me... (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    Mr. Wurzelbacher was playing football in his front yard with his son, Joey, on Sunday afternoon when Mr. Obama made an unscheduled stop to go door to door greeting voters and asking for their support.

    In his conversation with Mr. Wurzelbacher, Mr. Obama tried to justify his plan tax breaks to 95 percent of Americans and raise taxes on incomes above $250,000.

    Mr. Obama said his plan would improve the economy for other people trying to get a start in small business, and "spread the wealth."



    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#18)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    but compare the stock market since the inception of SS.  How about just a portion, come on!  ehh, OTH, forget about it, that would allow individuals to make their own decisions.  Can't have then -Common Good and all.

    Here's the problem (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    Retirees can not "time the market."

    You retire when you retire.

    It is this reason why privatization is a terrible idea.

    Parent

    That is only one of many reasons. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM EST
    Administrative costs is another issue.
    When the UK did something similar in the 70's, administrative costs skyrocketed.
    Then of course, there's the problem of disability coverage.

    Parent
    yup. (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    really? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:06:00 PM EST
    What is the retirement age?  You retire when you choose to retire.

    Parent
    With what money? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    The money we're paying SS benefits with today is not money we've had under a mattress since 1934, when we could have had it in the stock market all that time.  We pay current benefits with current receipts from the payroll tax.  There is no pool of money to invest in the stock market and never has been.

    Sure, if we want to borrow a few trillion dollars from China, we could set up private accounts for every American to invest as they please for the next 50 years.  Do you think that would be a good idea, to borrow money in order to invest it?

    Parent

    I would like (none / 0) (#74)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:08:38 PM EST
    to see Americans allowed to invest say 10% of the money they "contribute" to ss on their own if they want.  

    Parent
    I'm not sure you understand (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:52:54 PM EST
    that if we put 10% of current workers' payroll taxes in a private account, we must cut the benefits of current SS recipients by 10% to make up for the shortfall, or else borrow trillions of dollars to provide the seed money.  The money doesn't come from thin air.

    Parent
    I understand it. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 04:46:45 AM EST
    So you are saying there is no surplus with ss.  The same amount comes in each month that goes out?  Then we are really in trouble real quick.

    Parent
    Social Security (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    benefits are paid by money coming in today but with a surplus for the future.

    In 1983 the rate was increased from 4%, which was closer to break even, to 6.2%.  That adjustemnt was to prepare for comming demographics that forecast a lower number of workers per retiree.

    That change greatly increased the value of the Social Security trust fund.

    Inflow from FDIC withholding still vastly outstrips outflow and in fact plays the largest role in reducing the "total budget" (as opposed to "on budget") deficit.

    If nothing is done at all regarding Social Security, benefits would be 75% of the projected amount if the trust fund is exhausted. "Fixing" Social Security would be a simple matter of increasing the maximum salary subject to FDIC withholding.

    The various privatization schemes that have been put forward yielded much lower benefits.

    I would add that the Social Security Administration is one of the most efficient enterprises of any kind public or private.  Administrative overhead amounts to one sixth of one percent of benefits paid. It's impossible for any privatization scheme to match that standard.

    Parent

    Ripping money out of your check.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    to send to Wall St. is different than ripping money out of your check to send to Washington how exactly?

    A rip is a rip.

    Parent

    Your choice (2.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    of investments.  Yeah, I know, choice is only about abortion, everything else is the Common Good.

    Parent
    My choice... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    is poker, ponies, and roulette...not offered on Wall St....I know a spot in Chinatown:)  

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Makarov on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:22:26 PM EST
    which is worse - privatizing Social Security or a Democratic plan to get rid of 401K's.  Correntewire has the details.

    Can't find it (none / 0) (#36)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 01:45:38 PM EST
    Maybe you could provide a link.

    Parent
    let me give you the single (none / 0) (#45)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    best reason why "privatization" of SS is a bad idea: SS is not, I repeat (for those of you on drugs, or just stupid), is not a savings account. it is an insurance account, established as the minimum safety net for the elderly.

    the taxes you and your employer pay are actually premiums, excess of revenues/payments required to be invested in the safest possible way: gov't securities.

    SS is not akin to a 401(k), never has been.

    this next part is true:

    The money we're paying SS benefits with today is not money we've had under a mattress since 1934, when we could have had it in the stock market all that time.  We pay current benefits with current receipts from the payroll tax.  There is no pool of money to invest in the stock market and never has been.

    because, oddly enough, that's how the law is written.

    doesn't anyone, anywhere, do even a minimum of research, before spouting off about something they most clearly know absolutely nothing about?

    btw, it turns out neither "joe" or his employer have licenses in the county in ohio that they ply their trade in. as well, "joe" isn't actually registered to vote.

    so, if i get this straight, sen. mccain's buddy, "joe the plumber" doesn't make anywhere close to $250K in taxable income, he isn't a licensed plumber, and he hasn't even bothered to register to vote.

    why is anyone paying any attention to this f*cktard?

    What you say is untrue. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    btw, it turns out neither "joe" or his employer have licenses in the county in ohio that they ply their trade in. as well, "joe" isn't actually registered to vote.
    "Joe's" employer is licenced:
    According to Lucas County Building Inspection records, A. W. Newell Corp. does maintain a state plumbing license, and one with the City of Toledo
    And:
    Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections, said a Samuel Joseph Worzelbacher, whose address and age match Joe the Plumber's, registered in Lucas County on Sept. 10, 1992. He voted in his first primary on March 4 of this year, registering as a Republican.

    Ms. Howe said that the name may be misspelled in the database.



    Parent
    From today's NYT (none / 0) (#60)
    by shoephone on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    "All contractors are licensed, and he does not have a license, either as a contractor or a plumber," the union official said, citing a search of government records. "I can't find that he's ever even applied for any kind of apprenticeship, and he has never belonged to local 189 in Columbus, which is what he claims on his Facebook page."


    Parent
    insurance that pays (none / 0) (#59)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    no matter what, as long as you live to retire???

    Parent
    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#68)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    ...a deferred annuity is a more apt description?

    Parent
    yeah. (none / 0) (#69)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    yes. (none / 0) (#76)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:30:55 PM EST
    insurance that pays no matter what, as long as you live to retire???

    unless congress changes the law.

    with regards to "joe", his employer, and their license status, i read this on rawstory. give me a moment, and i'll get it.

    Parent

    here it is: (none / 0) (#77)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    Wurzelbacher said he works for a small plumbing company that does residential work. Because he works for someone else, he doesn't need a license, he said.

    But the county Wurzelbacher and his employer live in, Lucas County, requires plumbers to have licenses. Neither Wurzelbacher nor his employer are licensed there, said Cheryl Schimming of Lucas County Building Regulations, which handles plumber licenses in parts of the county outside Toledo.

    here's the link, i hope i did this right.

    Forget Joe the Plumber... (none / 0) (#79)
    by dutchfox on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    Skepticism is indeed in order, especially about BHO's "tap dancing" around the issues effecting lower income people. Have you notices his spiel to attract the "middle class" voters in all of the debates? The Democratic Party has time and again betrayed the aspirations of ordinary people (forget Joe the plumber making $250,000) while pursuing an agenda favorable to Wall Street and U.S. imperial ambitions.

    To all you Obama supporters: Watch this video and weep.

    first off, (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    i am, at best, a tepid obama supporter, seeing him as more the lesser of two evils, rather than as someone i enthusiastically support; that would have been sen. clinton.

    of course he's trying to attract the middle-class, who do you think comprises the greater proportion of the voting public? he'd be a fool to not try and attract them.

    my one hope is that, by choosing to stay in the senate, sen. clinton can (should he indeed be elected) hold a pres. obama's feet to the fire, and force him to expend political capital on pushing those policies that actually help the middle-class.

    sen. mccain is merely bush redux, just older and nastier.

    Parent

    In addition (none / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 08:54:25 PM EST
    Joes wants to buy the current business he's employed by.

    Turns out the business consists of the owner and Joe.  That's it, two guys.

    Plumbing can cover a lot of ground, from unclogging pipes, to new construction, to some types of heating systems, refitting existing plumbing, on and on.

    Many small plumbers concentrate on only a few areas. Some jobs require one man still others require two.

    I have to question net profit in excess of $250,000 for such an operation.

    But, if Joe is able to make in excess of $250,000 he SHOULD pay a higher rate on the excess.  Since it's a progressive tax he'd only pay the higher levy on the amount OVER $250,000.

    On earnings of $250,010. Joe would pay an additional 43 cents.  Poor Joe, my heart bleeds for his terrible plight.

    If Joe makes $250,000 or less he pays the current rate for the excess over $200,000.  For earnings under $200,000 he pays lower taxes under the Obama tax plan. If Joe earns $250,000 and no more he'll pay lower taxes under the Obama plan.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#86)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    Supporting a ban on late-term abortions? Sorry, not on, even with his "exceptions." It is a legal procedure, g.d. it, a legal MEDICAL procedure, and nobody--not Obama, not Jerry Falwell, not God himself--has the right to tell any woman she can't have one for WHATEVER reason.

    there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together

    Really? I don't see how. It's pretty simple and straightforward: You either believe that women have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and their own lives; or you don't. Where and what is the compromise? You can have one abortion, but not two, and certainly not three? You can have an abortion if it doesn't upset your husband or your religious adviser? (I'm still fuming over that one.) You can have half an abortion? What, in practical terms, does it mean?

    Thank you cpinva (none / 0) (#87)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    Thanks for posting that video. Heartbreaking.