COG

Social Insurance Reform Discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SOCIAL_INS: Let's start the discussion

Norm,  Thanks for chiming in.  I've used some of this in responses to my own question and I hope you will correct any of those where I missed something.  I am still developing some of them and will likely complete work on my analysis this week where I compare, yet again, what CESJ (you) and ICFE (me) say on this subject.
 
A focus of my question, which may not be in the documents you referenece, is to look at the current political landscape and discuss (in hopes of making concrete plans) what will be happening after the fall elections.
 
As to the comment about each citizen owing a contingent liability for Social Security - that is just not true.  We don't have a head tax in this country. 
 
The contingent liability not funded by Social Security taxes already paid and saved in the so-called Security Trust fund will be made up by changes in the productiveness in capital (which will lower prices and therefore benefits) or demographics or by increases in revenue. 
 
The contingent liability that has been funded previously or will be will be funded by general government revenue, either through the business income (currently corporate profits) tax or the personal income tax, which is currently more or less progressive and will be much more progressive in the near future (since the Bush tax cuts will not be made permanent).
 
As you know, my proposal is to change the business income tax to remove the deductability of wages and end personal income taxes on all but the wealthiest and cut the personal income tax rate so that it is a surtax which funds interest on the debt, debt retirement (including the debt owed to the Federal Reserve and to the Social Security Trust Fund) and possibly overseas military commitments (although these may be better funded by a tarrif on oil).
 
We well,
 
Michael

Norman Kurland <thirdway@cesj.org> wrote:
Michael, here's my input for generating a debate on keeping the promises that have been made under Social Security and Medicare, a pay-as-you-go system today that has no assets behind it except for the hidden unsustainable debt of future taxpayers of over $200,000 for every man, woman and child who will have to pay a growing retired population.   http://www.cesj.org/homestead/summary-cha.htm  For details see the book flyer for "Capital Homesteading for Every Citizen: A Just Free Market Solution for Saving Social Security" at http://www.cesj.org/publications/capitalhomesteading/whatif-flyer.pdf.  Testimonials and the entire book can be downloaded free at www.cesj.org.

Own or Be Owned,
Norm Kurland

Michael Bindner wrote:
Now that we know the list works, I wonder who is on it.
 
If you are still on it, pipe up.
 
Also, it is time to start a discussion.
 
The elections are coming up.  The next Congress will be President Bush's last try to enact Social Security Reform.
 
If you would, please assess the prospects of this under the the possible congressional scenarios (both houses Republican, both houses Democrat, Dem House/Rep. Senate and Rep. House/Dem Senate).
 
Also, those familiar with the list know that I have a proposal, Norm has a proposal and the President has one.
 
If you are unsure about any of these, please ask.
 
In your assessment, mention the likelihood of each of these proposals passing or even being debated and who would have to be signed up to do so.  How would organized labor figure in.  Will it continue to obstruct debate?  Is there a way to make the concept attractive to organized labor?  Has Labor gotten too much in bed with the Democrats to do anything but obstruct while George Bush is president?  If so, is this in the interest of their members?
 
Look at each proposal (Bush, Kurland, Bindner) and assess in terms of wealth expansion and workplace democraticization, as well as globalization.
 
Please do not inject any other proposals.  This is not the forum to trot out Social Credit, the Tobin Tax or Georgism since none of these have any direct impact on the distribution and control of stock ownership.  While the proceeds of these schemes may be used to buy stocks, changing stock ownership is not their primary purpose.  Of course, if there are other proposals out there you would like to discuss, such as the Clinton USA account or some variation on that, feel free.
 
Let's get the ball rolling.

Michael Bindner <iowaequity@yahoo.com> wrote: