March 30, 2005
I'm guessing most know about Bush's attempts to overhaul Social Security by creating "personal" or "private" investment accounts for individuals to supplement the future reduction in benefits as the SS fund starts to go down. There are critics and supporters on both sides. In general, I think it is a good idea, but not necessarily perfect. It will also be expensive to cover transitional costs, with estimates from billions up to trillions of dollars.However, this article about a possible "progressive indexation" makes me nervous. This idea starts to push an increasingly socialistic agenda in my mind. "Progressive indexation involves reducing the growth in benefits for people with middle and higher incomes, but letting the benefits keep rising for low-income retirees in future generations." This is another form of welfare I have a hard time with. Interestingly, Democrats usally slam Bush for giving the wealthy tax breaks, but now that Bush is on that side, they've taken the opposite view. I quote, "Many Democrats are skeptical. One problem, opponents say, is that middle-income and affluent people would feel increasingly short-changed as their benefits fell well behind their payroll taxes." And I would agree with them here.
Posted by charr at 10:02 AM
Reader Comments
|
Post a comment