Time to Talk About the Buffett Rule

Gregg, interesting article that puts things in a different perspective. Unfortunately for young kids even with a degree it is tough to get a start down that path with all the student debt and unemployment.


Another big factor is number and timing of children an staying married. A smaller family in a two parent home has the potential to give more resources and attention to each child. Watching my kids and their friends they are having smaller families, later in life and focusing on giving them educational advantages (and they aren't the 1% but maybe the top 25% or so). Contrast that with last week when I subbed in inner city schools while they were training the nurses in new forms they had to fill out for medicaid, and the poorer schools were full of kids with multiple siblings with different names, younger parents and one adult in the home (every single case I saw was a mother or grandmother), almost all free lunch and breakfast kids. What chance do they have of every being lifted out of poverty as compared to the parents I see in my neighborhood and my kids and their friends. Some of the kids I saw in Kindergarden and First grade knew less than my two year old grandchild and had no preparedness for learning to read and do basic math. Of course there are huge exceptions to this informal observation- but it does explain some of the gap between the poorest and richest in our society. Perhaps it is what the bottom percent is not doing right.

Needless to say I did this as a favor for a friends and it was a real eye opener to me, who normally sticks to suburban middle class and above schools.

You can tax the 1% at 80% and it won't be enough to overcome todays social issues.

Quote:

---

Harvard's Lawrence Katz has calculated that even if all the gains of the top 1% were redistributed to the 99%, household incomes would go up by less than half of what they would if everyone had a college degree

---

So if everyone had a college degree suddenly all jobs would be the exact same ones that exist now that "require" college degrees? And where would all these additional high wage jobs come from? I mean if you only need so many whatevers now, why are we suddenly going to need so many more whatevers in the future just because everyone has a degree qualifying them to be a whatever? I mean you can take jobs from other countries to some extent (but that's not so easy to do while being high wage, only a few countries seem to have that down (like Germany) - while a whole bunch of other countries have mastered "the race to the bottom").

I have no idea how Lawrence Katz developed his formula regarding the effect of education on income, but had the impression that it was a very long term observation not terribly skewed by what has happened in just the past few years. Anyway, I could not possibly agree more with anyone who believes that job creation is the top priority right now, for everyone, not just recent college grads. Technically creation of an environment in which job creation is rewarded is what's needed, but I split hairs. From my POV the article was interesting simply because it starts to address an issue from the bottom up rather than the top down. I'm a glass half full kinda guy most of the time so reducing gaps by lifting the bottom up is a lot more appealing to me than doing it by knocking the top down. YMMV.

My understanding is that progressive taxation is at least partially designed to temper the rise of the kind of robber-baron empires seen at the turn of the last century. Our post-war economy boomed with top-tier tax rates three times what earned income is taxed at today, so it's hard for me to see why anyone would complain about current rock-bottom federal taxation. I'd like to see a return to at least Reagan-era rates.

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business. But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

Quote:

---

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business.

---

It's a very bizarre focus in life beyond a certain point (a certain point of wealth of course but also a certain point of sacrificing other values for money), but yea really, who thinks about this stuff.

Quote:

---

But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

---

+1 it's seems it's become a self-reenforcing feedback loop: buy off the government, government makes laws and spends money in your favor, use profits to buy off the government. Rinse repeat, forever, until maybe eventually the whole thing collapses. Meanwhile not a single policy on anything sane like protecting the environment sees the light of day (it might offend a big polluter somewhere who has .... bought off the government).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Personally, I don't care if people's passion and focus in life is amassing money; that's their business. But when they use the money they've accumulated using taxpayer-supported laws and infrastructure to pour money into the campaigns of the Scott Walkers of the world, funding union busters and job exporters and other malefactors, it becomes an issue for me. And now, with the Citizens United decision, there are absolutely no barriers to just outright buying an election, so that we have a de facto government of the very, very rich. Not what the Founding Fathers intended.

---

It will be interesting to see how Walker fares in the recall election this June. Either the government unions re-establish their closed shop status, or they and their supporters in the Democratic Party will lose a significant and reliable funding source permanently. The Democratic primary candidate most closely aligned with the unions is Kathleen Falk. She has pledged to veto any state budget that does not return to the status quo pro ante. She appears to be running behind Tom Barrett, the Mayor of Milwaukee.

With the implications for national trends, a lot of money is pouring into Wisconsin on both sides, and television stations in the larger markets are doing very well by the first amendment right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

It's a very bizarre focus in life beyond a certain point (a certain point of wealth of course but also a certain point of sacrificing other values for money), but yea really, who thinks about this stuff.

---

When you think of it in terms of accumulating more of anything than you can use there is an element that doesn't make much sense. At that point it really doesn't matter if its gold or cats or Gods or zucchini plants, I would think the psychology is the same.

Regarding taxation, I think our government takes in plenty of money right now and don't think anyone needs to pay more. The government needs to spend less. And it needs to spend in ways that offer more benefits to more people. If those kinds of changes are made and we are still going deeper in debt then higher taxes might make more sense.

Maybe it would help if old Warren would just pay what he owes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1382591.html

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmc

Maybe it would help if old Warren would just pay what he owes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1382591.html

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

---

Because we don't run the country on yard sales and donations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmc

Also if he thought that the government was doing such a fine job why is he donating the majority of his wealth to Bill Gates charity instead of letting it go to the gov in inheritance taxes.

---

I'm glad the majority of his wealth is going somewhere that might do some good, but handing a chunk over to the government would silence a lot of critics. And who knows peggy, if we keep going like we are a yard sale may be exactly how we raise money. Whacha' give me for an Osprey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I'm glad the majority of his wealth is going somewhere that might do some good, but handing a chunk over to the government would silence a lot of critics. And who knows peggy, if we keep going like we are a yard sale may be exactly how we raise money. Whacha' give me for an Osprey?

---

That's pretty much how we do health care now. Bake sales and car washes for kids with cancer. Ospreys? No problem. Buy two.
We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Quote:

---

Regarding taxation, I think our government takes in plenty of money right now and don't think anyone needs to pay more. The government needs to spend less. And it needs to spend in ways that offer more benefits to more people. If those kinds of changes are made and we are still going deeper in debt then higher taxes might make more sense.

---

Yea if only [incredibly unlikely hypothetical happened] then everything would be good. If only the sun became less bright global warming wouldn't be a problem. If only workers took over all the workplaces tommorow, we wouldn't have any need for overtime laws. "If all the world were paper, and all the sea were ink, and all the trees were bread and cheese ....". And if only the government really cut all of the things we might think it could cut (especially the military industrial complex IMO) then even worrying about how badly taxes were out of line with spending wouldn't be a problem. I mean idealism is fine, but I'm trying to extrapolate the LIKELY trend here. And this isn't going to end well .... Really should have just let the Bush tax cuts expire, was the least that could have been done.

By the way the U.S. may already have a flat tax if you take all taxes into account (and thus those who want flat taxes on the federal level are actually calling for regressive taxation, which wouldn't be surprising, a level playing field is never enough, too many want overt favortism for those that are already priviledged):
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/23/amer...ate/singleton/

But I'm actually ok with social security being seperately financed, raise the cap on wages that are taxable by Social Security, and it can be near indefinitely (but oh horror some higher earning people might have to pay more taxes - because social security taxes would then be FLAT!). But really could well save social security for a really really long time. I don't actually speak about medicare because it's way too tied up in the mess that is the whole u.s. healthcare situation to likely have such an easy fix.

"But I'm actually ok with social security being seperately financed, raise the cap on wages that are taxable by Social Security, and it can be near indefinitely (but oh horror some higher earning people might have to pay more taxes - because social security taxes would then be FLAT!). But really could well save social security for a really really long time. I don't actually speak about medicare because it's way too tied up in the mess that is the whole u.s. healthcare situation to likely have such an easy fix. "

I'll go further and say we should eliminate the cap on FICA taxes altogether along with making the rate progressive. Et voila'--no more funding problem. Al Gore was absoutely right-Social Security should be sacrosanct behind his hypothetical lock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

But I'm actually ok with social security being seperately financed, raise the cap on wages that are taxable by Social Security, and it can be near indefinitely (but oh horror some higher earning people might have to pay more taxes - because social security taxes would then be FLAT!). But really could well save social security for a really really long time.

---

All for it. Keep the rate flat, but eliminate the cap on both ends, collection AND payout. From what I've read that simple change would fund SS forever. The road block comes not when the conservative watchdogs complain about higher taxation, but when someone with a different political POV complains about the greedy people who would get to take more out just because they put 10 times or 100 times more in.

That would make SS the biggest bait and switch ever. If you don't tie distributions to contributions, heck just go ahead send everyone envelopes of cash from day one and get this free cheese party really rocking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East River Guide

That would make SS the biggest bait and switch ever. If you don't tie distributions to contributions, heck just go ahead send everyone envelopes of cash from day one and get this free cheese party really rocking.

---

No the biggest bait and swith EVER EVER EVER is if there is little left for the generations after the boomers, after people have paid in their entire lives (but that's actually what is anticipated if you look at the Social Security statements, so that appears to be the current plan).

It's such horrible free cheese to want to implement changes that might allow the program to continue past the boomers, almost indefinitely. But just letting the boomers benefit from Social Security and there being NO SAFETY NET for old people afterwards despite having paid in all these years (basically supporting the boomers), is not free cheese AT ALL - why would anyone think so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

if there is little left for the generations after the boomers, after people have paid in their entire lives

---

That's me, post boomer generation. But my solution to the problem isn't to just screw the next generation down. People are living 15 years longer now than when SS was passed. We need to get away from the mindset that the solution is always to spend more. We can fix things by adjusting benefits to reflect the change in demographics.

I don't like SS at all, but also don't think its a bait and switch. My generation, boomers, is the biggest generation to date because our parents fought a big war and really settled in when they got back home. We are also living longer than previous generations thanks to advances in medical care. The demographics are that simple. It's ridiculous to say the boomers are somehow evil and trying to screw upcoming generations. Anybody can figure out that if you have less people paying in than you have taking out AND those taking out are doing it for longer there is going to be a problem. Like ERG said, we need to make adjustments. IMO, we should eliminate the cap at both ends (contribution and distribution). Of the two parts of the FICA tax, the Medicare portion already has no upper limit. Only SS caps at $106,800. If you want to keep the program going in the future the simple move is to eliminate that cap. The increase in distributions wouldn't show up till later when the program is fully funded. Start it now and you'd have the advantage of the last 15 years or so of the boomer generation at full earning capacity paying in to support the older boomers and remaining members of the greatest generation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

If you want to keep the program going in the future the simple move is to eliminate that cap.

---

If you are going to move from a quasi pension scheme to a general welfare program, just roll it into the general fund and be done with it. I think it is a bad idea because once you unmoor the program, costs will likely just spiral higher, which is the the problem inherent in unfunded defined benefit plans. I wish there was a way to make this a funded plan or defined contribution plan but I don't see the political will.

To be honest I play with enough doomer scenarios that it may not even matter. But if it does.... I like Social Security, it protects old people from out and out poverty when they are often too old to be considered of value in the market (although the age that has gotten "too old" now due to age discrimination at this point is completely ridiculous - but those people are too young for Social Security anyway). Index funds and so on are not returning anything. You project the vast majority in plans with a zero rate of real return 20 or 30 years out and hmm. So much for employees paying the full cost of their retirement entirely by playing the stock market.

SS isn't a 'scheme'. I realize you are too young to know this but 'The Poor House' wasn't just a state of mind. It was an actual place where poor people, mostly elderly, went because they simply could not afford to live anywhere. I know young people all think they will be wildly successful and well off when they retire, every one of them thinks that, but the reality of life is, you probably won't be. I'm not saying you will be a failure. You can live a comfortable life, able to pay your bills and eat, but most won't be able, for one reason or another, to save what they need to fund life beyond working years, which are finite, despite your incredible good health now. Stuff just breaks down. And by the way, Boomers paid into SS too, all our lives, so the blame game just doesn't work there.
And pensions are going the way of dinosaurs. So what are the elderly to do? You can't just take away SS and re-boot. People need to eat, today as it turns out, and tomorrow and the next and the next day. They also need utilities, again today and tomorrow. And the elderly need more health care cause stuff does break down. And it's not just heart transplants for everyone, but everyday stuff they need which will enable them to live quite a while longer in relative good health.

SS is here to stay, thank goodness, so we need to start at that point and go forward to fix it. Begrudging people SS is ignoring history, as well as our own national ethics of moral obligation. Are we a third world country or are we the United States of America?

Stuff costs. That's a fact. We can't run a modern, progressive country on yesterdays dollars. Sure there is some waste and abuse, but not nearly enough to make up the short fall. The super wealthy need to stop whining and pony up some more. Not a lot, but some. NASA needs to stop whining and realize we simply can't aford to go to the moon right now (or Mars or anywhere else). The military needs to stop whining and cut the budget, and quit promoting wars and all the glittery gadgets that go with it. The big oil companies need to stop whining (as do we) and not expect subsidies (and we need to stop whining and realize what a gallon of gas really costs)

On the other hand, the nations infrastructure really needs to be addressed. That is going to cost a lot of money, so we just need to get on with it and stop whining. We are not about to let our elderly go hungry and homeless, so we just need to stop whining and fix it already, without all the political posturing and gamesmanship.

To be clear, the only problem I have with SS is that it was set up to be supplemental retirement income, not the whole shebang. I couldn't tell you exactly where or when that started to change for so many people. I'm not even looking for anyone to blame. We need to deal with where we are and what's coming in a way that won't throw a whole generation of retirees under the bus and, unfortunately, that is going to have to include raising more money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Stuff costs. That's a fact. We can't run a modern, progressive country on yesterdays dollars. Sure there is some waste and abuse, but not nearly enough to make up the short fall. The super wealthy need to stop whining and pony up some more. Not a lot, but some. NASA needs to stop whining and realize we simply can't aford to go to the moon right now (or Mars or anywhere else). The military needs to stop whining and cut the budget, and quit promoting wars and all the glittery gadgets that go with it. The big oil companies need to stop whining (as do we) and not expect subsidies (and we need to stop whining and realize what a gallon of gas really costs)

On the other hand, the nations infrastructure really needs to be addressed. That is going to cost a lot of money, so we just need to get on with it and stop whining. We are not about to let our elderly go hungry and homeless, so we just need to stop whining and fix it already, without all the political posturing and gamesmanship.

---

Ya know peggy, for a liberal you're ok sometimes.

The big problem with SS has been the diversion of surpluses into the general fund and replacing them with IOU's. They knew the boomers were coming, but spent the money on other stuff instead on the misplaced notion that the next generation would be able pay for it.

Actually what's happened to this country over the past generation sounds a lot like the businesses Romnay is accused of taking over and gutting for profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

And by the way, Boomers paid into SS too, all our lives, so the blame game just doesn't work there.

---

It's not a matter of if, it's how much.

Quote:

---

Begrudging people SS is ignoring history, as well as our own national ethics of moral obligation.

---

And on this point I invite you to man up and sell it straight. The history of SS is as a quasi pension plan where benefits (eligibility, payments, etc.) are at least indirectly related to contributions. If you want an all encompassing committment to fundng the elderly, step up and get a national consensus. Debased systems, be it healthcare or SS, just result in inefficiency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

To be clear, the only problem I have with SS is that it was set up to be supplemental retirement income, not the whole shebang. I couldn't tell you exactly where or when that started to change for so many people. I'm not even looking for anyone to blame. We need to deal with where we are and what's coming in a way that won't throw a whole generation of retirees under the bus and, unfortunately, that is going to have to include raising more money.




Ya know peggy, for a liberal you're ok sometimes.

---

Well, what happened was pensions started going away. And health care costs went through the roof. If health care had risen only as paychecks and/or inflation, people would still be able to help themselves. But the rise was way out of proportion to the economy. And I think more elderly want to be independent. Where a few generations ago it was expected that the parents would come live with the kids, now they move to Florida to live independent lives. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you see it, we are living longer, so more health care issues for the general population instead of the few who outlived everyone else. Men, for instance, will ALL have prostrate problems, with a very large percentage getting prostate cancer. In the past, a larger percentage simply died of old age before these problems arose, but now, thanks to modern medicine, you can expect to live until your prostrate is as big as a basketball! I think medicine is starting to take a more realistic view of this, in that they are just trying to control the symptoms without trying to cure. That approach could probably be applied to a lot of things, but, as a compassionate society, we aren't going to deny grandpa a good shot at cure if he really really wants it.
But, because folks are living longer and more advanced medicine is keeping some going who would otherwise depart, it is increasingly difficult to keep our parents at home even if we wanted to. My own father, who has alzheimers and parkinson's, is still himself, most of the time, but the combination of the two diseases makes it impossible to keep him at home. The physical care required is simply beyond me, my sisters or my mother. so he lives in a nursing home. they take very good care of him, but it's expensive. Insurance takes care of some and my mother the rest, thank goodness she can, but in a very few years there goes her nest egg. She will always have a home with me or my sisters, but she will be broke, relying solely on SS and medicare.

So, that's what happened. Life happened. Or rather the realities of life happened. We did away with the poor house, but in doing that we accepted the responsibility. And really, SS wasn't intended to be the sole support, but it has become so for many simply because there isn't anything else. This isn't a demographic that can simply go out and get a job, or make more money, or just not get sick.


"Ya know peggy, for a liberal you're ok sometimes."


Thanks gregg. Actually, I'm not unlike most liberals. Most liberals aren't bleeding heart anyone's. Now days, we're pretty much where republicans were not that many years ago. *

*:idea:it would seem, history tells us that the push to the right coincided with the downward spiral of the economy, infrastructure, politics, moral direction.....;)

Absolutely. I'm a proud (mostly) Eisenhower Republican.

ETA: My g-grandmother spent some years of her (apparently miserable) life in a poorhouse. Not a family tradition I'm eager to honor.

OK, devil's advocate - anyone know what the cost differential is between group housing and individual housing? Everyone here apparently considers it abhorent, but what are we talking, a free place to eat and live? Throw in some healthcare and how bad is it? Personally I think more communal housing would be better for us. You are of course free to disagree when spending your own money, but if the public is footing your food and rent why can't we look for efficient ways to do it? If you can live separately for the same cost that may be better, but why should the public pay more to get you that luxury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East River Guide

OK, devil's advocate - anyone know what the cost differential is between group housing and individual housing? Everyone here apparently considers it abhorent, but what are we talking, a free place to eat and live? Throw in some healthcare and how bad is it? Personally I think more communal housing would be better for us. You are of course free to disagree when spending your own money, but if the public is footing your food and rent why can't we look for efficient ways to do it? If you can live separately for the same cost that may be better, but why should the public pay more to get you that luxury?

---

Hey! it's Newt's 1990's era orphanage solution, only this time we warehouse our elderly poor. Cool!
Yes, since it's not your money, after working and paying taxes for a lifetime, or raising your children you have no say in where or how you live, because when you take government "charity" you become a second class citizen. Low income
removes your pride and independence.

Of course, since the government can't possibly run anything properly, building, equiping and running these places will just have to be privatized and since all govt workers ar just so over paid these places will be staffed with non-union low wage workers ...all the better to make sure that we have the next generation of elderly poor to fill these warehouses..
Really, it's not like SSI money goes back into the local economy in the form of food or clothing purchases. It doesn't pay rent or taxes on purchases or bus fare, haircuts, or gas or anything...society doesn't benefit at all from SSI. Such a waste.

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, old folks homes are not particuarly cheap I don't think. Or is this just an argument for getting roommates? Or should the government build giant warehouses to warehouse the old? Somehow that doesn't sound very appealing ...

If this is just some argument that there should be cheaper ways to feed and house yourself and meet the basic necessities in life than there are. Yes, well ... wouldn't want wage earners to have that option though - they might quit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chanterelle

Really, it's not like SSI money goes back into the local economy in the form of food or clothing purchases.

---

Sure, just like healthcare costs, or military spending, or fancy GSA parties. It's all good, right? Maybe that's the solution to everything- the more the governemnt gives away the better we all are because hey, it all goes back in the economy. :doh:

Tent City, here I come!

(BTW--good post, Chanterelle.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by East River Guide

Sure, just like healthcare costs, or military spending, or fancy GSA parties. It's all good, right? Maybe that's the solution to everything- the more the governemnt gives away the better we all are because hey, it all goes back in the economy. :doh:

---

What nonsense, the military and pharma's bloated costs do not come into play here ...local economies, meaning local jobs, local sales tax revenues, goods and services, local property taxes and rents, everything that a population spends on...the things that keep the basic economy chugging along. Keeping senior citizens above the poverty line and marginaly healthy is basic common economic sense if nothing else.

It was just an inquiry into why the "poor house" was a bogeyman. Some have claimed in the healthcare debate that we should remove the profit seeking entities from the equation. If you do that with nursing homes you basically have a govenrment owned operation to house and medicate the old folks. A modern day poor house so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chanterelle

What nonsense, the military and pharma's bloated costs do not come into play here ...local economies, meaning local jobs, local sales tax revenues, goods and services, local property taxes and rents, everything that a population spends on...the things that keep the basic economy chugging along.

---

Stop, you are killing me. Every place is local to the people who are there.

I have a friend whose elderly sister lives in a HUD-subsidized apartment. It sounds like a nice enough place with a sense of community among all the seniors. Most of the very old already live communally, so that part isn't much of a stretch. Personally, I dread living on top of a bunch of people, but it will probably come to that in the end. http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_sta...g_of_truce.gif

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.elderweb.com/book/export/html/2806

One thing I didn't know - many programs to help the elderly prior to SS were denied if there were children or relatives capable of providing.

Whether you believe Americans are capable of saving and managing the decumulation of retirement assets for themselves, or that government must step in and do it for them, we ultimately depend on the performance of the economy to provide the wherewithal for the needed dividends or taxes. Part of the solution may be to link government benefit increases to economic growth. I think the Swedes do something like that with a notional account system for their national pension.

Apart from injecting a bit of reality into the ongoing debate, there might be some political benefit to making the interests of the recipients more consistent with those of the providers. We might spend less time arguing about symbolic but fiscally trivial items like the Buffet Rule and more time discussing strategies that could really matter.

Quote:

---

Whether you believe Americans are capable of saving and managing the decumulation of retirement assets for themselves, or that government must step in and do it for them

---

What a silly blanket statement, rather depends on under what conditions. Doesn't it all? Some people earn so little that they will never be able to save for retirement. Even those that do, under very little real rate of return it is going to be harder. Even then I am not convinced impossible. But under a scenario of very little real rate of return with the costs of things needed by the elderly increasong more than inflation. Hmm, when you reach the point that 80-90% of people can't save for their retirement maybe time to call game over. Certain positions would just blame these people for not being the virtuous 10-20% though.

Quote:

---

we ultimately depend on the performance of the economy to provide the wherewithal for the needed dividends or taxes.

---

True it is probably why the whole thing is ultimately unsustainable, since this economy is unsustainable, and then much will have to change (they'll um still be the need to meet the basic needs for old people who can't provide immediate income through their labor). No I'm not envisioning ice floes even in that situation. But not sustainable because natural limits are reached, and not sustainable because of deliberate pursuit of plutocracy and bad fiscal policy are different things (cutting taxes in general but especially cutting of payroll taxes - yes those taxes that most directly fund social security and medicare - is just bad fiscal policy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chanterelle

What nonsense, the military and pharma's bloated costs do not come into play here ...local economies, meaning local jobs, local sales tax revenues, goods and services, local property taxes and rents, everything that a population spends on...the things that keep the basic economy chugging along. Keeping senior citizens above the poverty line and marginaly healthy is basic common economic sense if nothing else.

---

Nonsense? I was in a town last week who's LOCAL economy is VERY closely tied to a large defense contractor with a plant there. That company is the largest employer in town (by far) and provides the jobs that are at the top of the scale for pay and benefits. Those ARE local jobs. With those paychecks the people buy their local goods, hire their local services, pay their local taxes... Without those jobs the farmer's market, the art gallery, the dental clinic, the cafe and all the other local businesses in the "basic economy" would chug along right into their graves.

There are very few, if any, local economies in this country that exist without influence and input from larger scale state, regional, national and even global forces. When it comes for caring for the elderly that is a good thing because there are very few, if any, local economies that have the money and the resources to do much of that. Best be careful what you wish for.

And there isn't anything else that federal government money could possible be used to do, but fund more "defense" department than even the pentagon asks for? There is a certain point where you know very well what you are asking for and can still wish for ... collapse (but even then it doesn't mean you wish for dumb ineffectual unjust ways to bring it on just because - as in lets reduce the funding for social security even more for a tax cut today!).