In 1935 President Roosevelt proposed and got passed the now infamous Social Security Act. In 1935 the rate of taxation was 2% of incomes up to $3,000, and there were 47 workers paying into the fund for every potential recipient over age 65.
Today there are 3 people working and paying in to the fund for every one on social security. The rate is 12.5% and the maximum has been raised to $100,000 of earned income.
In 1935 the average length of life was 63 years, so not many people ever got to receive the benefit, and the fund was solvent. Now with the advent of medical advancement and new drugs to sustain longer life, more and more people are living into their 80's.
It has been projected by those who "manage" the social security fund that by 2047 the fund will be bankrupt. This will occur even sooner if the beaurcratic system of our federal government keeps tapping into the yearly surplus as they have been doing for years.
A seldom publicised fact is that each year the federal government takes what ever is left over from the taxes paid into the fund for use in the general revenue. They give the fund an IOU which is held by the fund for redemption when needed.
The problem is the IOU's are not worth the paper they are written on. The government is running massive deficits because of Congress's profligrate spending on both sides of the aisle for "pork" projects that keep them in Washington living the high life of a federal government politician.
The one who will pay the bill when it comes due, and it will be a "doozy" is estimated at 65 trillion dollars that will come from the people in the form of more taxes. Even that won't help the fund unless the tax rate for social security is raised to 20% of earned income, as estimated by experts in analysis of the Social Security sytem have said.
This being said how in the blazes is the tax payer going to afford to pay for not only universal heatth care coverage, defense and welfare without going to a tax rate, independent of social security, of at least 40%?
Demagogues like Hillary and Obama, not only promise universal health coverage, but are getting to the point of being asinine, when Obama promises one thing Hillary tries to "OneUp" him. Take this as an example: "My opponent promised you drivers licenses," Clinton said at a rally in Jackson Heights, NY. "Well, ladies and gentlemen, I will do you one better. I will give every family a car to drive so you have a use for those drivers licenses!"
The atrociousness and diabolical nature of this promise is that she is not promising this to legal poor citizens of United States. She is making this promise to a rally of aliens, most of whom are illegals from Mexico! I know in both cases the candidates realize that illegals should not and cannot vote by law, but this is pandering to the Latin and Mexican voters that are legal, and will vote because they belive the candidates are for them. There dilema is that McCain also is an advocate of "amnesty" for illegals. No one appears to care about the impact on the neglected taxpayers.
Hillary Clinton delivered a Valentines Day promise in Texas that went like this: She outlined a path for illegal immigrants to gain citizenship in exchange for paying fines and back taxes and learning English. She said she wanted to develop a continuous working relationship with Mexico’s government and national organizations. She said she would help deliver the area’s first veterans hospital south of San Antonio. And she vowed to examine border security and push for more personnel and technology, in contrast to the federal government’s focus on building a border fence. You know who will pay for this!
When you consider whom you will vote for remember promises are good only if you can back them up! Both Hillary and Barack have promised universal health care to cover the 15 to 20 million Americans who don't have any coverage, but all wokers will have to pay for it in the form of additional taxes or garnishments of wages. And don't believe for a minute that atxing the"rich" more will pay for all they promise. If you confiscated all the ealth of the so called"rich" you still wouldn't have enough to bail out socialsecurity and runa balanced budget!
Experts on health care costs predict the following: The health care plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama are similar in many ways, but they differ in several important respects. The Clinton plan "mandates" health insurance for everyone. The Obama plan requires that all children have insurance, and subsidizes health care for other Americans who are presently uninsured. Clinton estimates that her plan will cost in the region of $110 billion a year; Obama has put a $50 to $65 billion price tag on his proposals.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment