I agree with the gentlewoman, let us say that you did set up personal accounts, and how you do that is open to debate, but let us say that you did that, you reduced the average payroll tax for a worker; let us, say, number one that we are not going to change the benefits for anyone over the age of 50 or 55, but let us say you set up personal accounts with 2 percent, with that 2 percent of the 12.4 percent, my point would be that that is in their name, and as Senator Kerrey says, my goal is to help everyone in this country become richer. That is an automatic increase in wealth for them, but the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. If you take 2 percent out of that 12.4 percent, that is about $1 in $6 of current revenues going into Social Security that is not in that trust fund.
Greg Ganske: “I agree with the gentlewoman, let us say that you did set up personal accounts, and how you do that is open to debate…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of personal accounts on Social Security during a floor debate.
Share
More from Greg Ganske
Here is what two law professors from New Jersey say: ``In preempting State law, the Norwood amendment goes beyond conduct that involves negligent medical judgment to a particular patient's case. The amendment may, by virtue of the words…
In preempting State law, the Norwood amendment goes beyond conduct that involves negligent medical judgment to a particular patient's case. The amendment made by virtue of the words 'based on' stipulate that State malpractice law does not…
The underlying Ganske-Dingell bill does have access provisions that I think are bipartisan, for instance, 100 percent deductibility for the self-insured and other small business provisions to help increase access. There will be an…
And would the gentleman say that the reason for that is that his bill is focusing primarily on the initial creation of this blastocyst or the equivalent of a fertilized egg and the problems that that would have because we would be…





