STAR*BRIAN STAR*BRIAN: Flat Tax & Social Security *

Talking points on current events

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Flat Tax & Social Security

Here's why these two could help each other.

With all of this talk about Bush trying to destroy social security and the petitions floating around the net, let's take a look at the problem.

Social Security, founded in 1935, was designed as a safety net for those retiring to ensure they had something to retire on. A system that would sustain itself as workers contributed more, and the government less. As those retired grow older, and less people in the workforce as baby boomers retire, the amount of money coming in to social security will start to be less and less in the next 15 to 20 years. By then, more money will go out than coming in.

Bush's personal accounts plan calls for up to 4% to be put aside by the worker in special, government approved, accounts. On a voluntary basis. And other than real estate, the stock market has always been a good investment over 20 to 30 to 40 years. So, if you contribute $100 a month, you could choose to put up to $4.00 in a private account. We like choice, don't we?

Secondly, there is no "plan" out there. Under law, Bush can not draft a bill and have congress approve it. It doesn't work that way. So, Democrats are up to their usual "doom and gloom" approach, rather than drafting their own solution. They don't like the private accounts because they want to know where the money will come from to pay for it, assuming everyone under 55 adopts this idea.

How about a flat tax?

A flat tax would be a way for everyone to pay taxes fairly and would raise a lot more money than the current system. I would eliminate taxes on anyone earning less than $24,000 a year. But a flat tax will never happen, and here's why.

Republicans need taxes. Did I just say that? Of course they do. Each time there is an election, they can look to the big business guys and wink, knowing that if I'm elected, you'll pay less in payroll tax, property tax, or just about any other form of tax.

Democrats need taxes. How else does someone pay for more education costs? College for all? Retirement for all? Health care for all? Yup, we'll raise your taxes and you'll be a CEO in 5 years. Welcome to Canada.

The percentage increase a flat tax would create could be divided in two, with one section going to start paying down the current deficit and the second part paying for the change in the social security system.

As I have said before, social security is a problem. Maybe not today, but it will be. Looking at it now is the proper way a President should handle it. Because you can guarantee that whoever is President 20 years from now will campaign on fixing it. And I'll remember a President who wanted to do just that.

1 Comments:

Blogger Jay Rocchi said...

You may echo more people`s sentiments than you might think. If a flat tax that eliminated loopholes such as "offshore" entities, and everyone was held accountable, there`d be more than enough revenue to go around. Republicans are less scary than dems these days, but might be the tougher obstacle to a flat tax. It`s a shame we have to accept the entire party ptatform when we vote for or against a candidate.
jayrocktone.blogspot.com
" " @comcast.net

10:18 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home