FDR Planned private accounts in SS Program

[Riprorin]

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Link

FDR had it right, today's Dems don't.

 

[imported_tss4]

On this, I finally agree with you.

 

[Engineer]

I agree that we should have the option for "COMPLETELY" private and personal accounts, but I doubt that either DEMS OR REPS will have the balls to do it. Regardless of private (personal) accounts or not, SS needs a boost through either lower payouts or higher taxes to correct the long term shortages, even if just for the current generation. I understand Bush doesn't want tax hikes, but to blindly borrow trillions just doesn't seem right.

Then again, if the government raises the SS tax, they'll blindly borrow (by law) it so I guess it wouldn't be much different.

 

[Spencer278]

Private accounts would be great to implement 40 years ago when SS was having surplus, but with only 15 years until it start losing money, it is a little late to start saving.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Link

FDR had it right, today's Dems don't.

Read it more carefully. "Voluntary contributory" sounds a lot like a 401(k) to me. It would be interesting to see the full text of FDR's statement, maybe see if there were more detailed plans to go with it.

 

[Panakk]

What does it mean when it's said that social security taxed wages are capped at 90k? Does that mean that anyone who earns more than 90K does not have to pay social security?

 

[mwtgg]

cleared up in a late post

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Link

FDR had it right, today's Dems don't.

Now *that* is interesting, I never saw that before! Given the rest of the New Deal Rape, I wouldn't have expected it to come from FDR

Jason

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Panakk
What does it mean when it's said that social security taxed wages are capped at 90k? Does that mean that anyone who earns more than 90K does not have to pay social security?

It means you only withhold FICA on the first $90K earned each year. If you earn more than $90K, you do NOT pay the tax on the excess above $90K.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Link

FDR had it right, today's Dems don't.

Read it more carefully. "Voluntary contributory" sounds a lot like a 401(k) to me. It would be interesting to see the full text of FDR's statement, maybe see if there were more detailed plans to go with it.

Good observation, Bow. 401k's are definitely an awesome plan; it would not hurt anything for more people to have access to them.

Jason

 

[nageov3t]

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.

...

Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

Roosevpwned

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: loki8481

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.

...

Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

Roosevpwned

Sounds alot like private accounts. I watched this Segment with Brit Hume and I cant say that he took FDR out of context.

 

[Tom]

The part you bolded is exactly how Social Security works, right now. Has nothing to do with private accounts.

by all means the tax sytem should be modified to encourage long term savings, paritcularly for low and middle class tax payers, but that shouldn't have anything to do with Social Security.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tom
The part you bolded is exactly how Social Security works, right now. Has nothing to do with private accounts.

by all means the tax sytem should be modified to encourage long term savings, paritcularly for low and middle class tax payers, but that shouldn't have anything to do with Social Security.

SS is not an annuity. An annuity is something you own.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: loki8481

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.

...

Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

Roosevpwned

He couldn't resist the urge to start a new post a throw a jab the the Dems. He missed big time.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tom
The part you bolded is exactly how Social Security works, right now. Has nothing to do with private accounts.

by all means the tax sytem should be modified to encourage long term savings, paritcularly for low and middle class tax payers, but that shouldn't have anything to do with Social Security.

SS is not an annuity. An annuity is something you own.

Not if the SS annuity is the one Bush proposed.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tom
The part you bolded is exactly how Social Security works, right now. Has nothing to do with private accounts.

by all means the tax sytem should be modified to encourage long term savings, paritcularly for low and middle class tax payers, but that shouldn't have anything to do with Social Security.

SS is not an annuity. An annuity is something you own.

That is not the definition of an annuity.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Riprorin
In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Link

FDR had it right, today's Dems don't.

Read it more carefully. "Voluntary contributory" sounds a lot like a 401(k) to me. It would be interesting to see the full text of FDR's statement, maybe see if there were more detailed plans to go with it.

Pfft... reading comprehension is dumb!

Anyways, yeah, that's what it sounds like to me.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Tom
The part you bolded is exactly how Social Security works, right now. Has nothing to do with private accounts.

by all means the tax sytem should be modified to encourage long term savings, paritcularly for low and middle class tax payers, but that shouldn't have anything to do with Social Security.

SS is not an annuity. An annuity is something you own.

Not if the SS annuity is the one Bush proposed.

The wapo article that started it all has been corrected.. You cant stop this drivel now.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: loki8481

In an attempt to promote President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett and FOX News managing editor and anchor Brit Hume falsely claimed that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt advocated replacing Social Security with private accounts. In fact, while Roosevelt advocated "voluntary contributory annuities" to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits, he never proposed replacing those benefits with private accounts.

...

Roosevelt was not advocating that the present system of guaranteed Social Security benefits "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Rather, he was proposing that both guaranteed Social Security retirement benefits and voluntary annuities would eventually eliminate the need for a different fund which was established to provide pension benefits to Americans who were already too old in 1935 to contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security system.

Roosevelt outlined the three major tenets he envisioned for Social Security in the January 17, 1935, speech that Hume quoted. As the Social Security Administration (SSA) has noted, these tenets are: 1) "non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"; 2) "compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"; and 3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502040010

Roosevpwned

So maybe if the "self-supporting system" isn't self-supporting we should allow people on their own "initiative...[to] increase the annual amounts received in old age". What a great plan? Maybe the current administration should consider that? Oh, wait...