That's pretty much how we do health care now. Bake sales and car washes for kids with cancer. Ospreys? No problem. Buy two.Originally Posted by Gregg
We should be ashamed of ourselves.
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.
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.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.
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.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 4-26-12 at 2:04pm.
Trees don't grow on money
"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.
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.
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?
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 4-27-12 at 2:00am.
Trees don't grow on money
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.
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.
Last edited by ApatheticNoMore; 4-27-12 at 11:36am.
Trees don't grow on money
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote