Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on November 17, 2014, 04:16:02 PM
-
Oh, we already are:
http://www.aei.org/publication/new-cbo-study-shows-rich-dont-just-pay-fair-share-pay-almost-everybodys-share/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aei.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FCBOtable2.jpg&hash=d0ff0ac9755a6d9972742b127c731e31cdc13337)
If you read the article, only the top 40% are net taxpayers and the VAST majority is the top 20%.
The bottom 60% are net government beneficiaries to the tune of about $10K per household.
Now, I couldn't help but think of this discussion (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=43950.0) when I saw that. How would we afford to pay for $10K per household as a minimum income? Well, we're already doing it, apparently.
-
I'm not for increasing taxes on the 1%. I'm interested in increasing the taxes on the .01%, where taxes paid tend to actually invert as tax shelters and the 15% cap on long term capital gains exceeds income from things like salary.
After that, well, it's to cost cutting, balancing the budget, while engaging in policies to encourage full employment. If various low-paying businesses have trouble hiring people at minimum wage, they'll eventually pay more or go under from not being able to provide goods&services due to shutdowns from not enough workers.
-
What do they consider ".gov transfer"? Also does not take into account all the myriad non-Federal income tax taxes that people pay.
-
What do they consider ".gov transfer"? Also does not take into account all the myriad non-Federal income tax taxes that people pay.
Welfare, SS, subsidies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_payment)
-
A compelling reason for a flat tax with no shelters or exemptions.
-
A compelling reason for a flat tax with no shelters or exemptions.
I don't think you can get rid of 'all' exemptions, but I remember reading recently that, especially today, the home mortgage tax credit has turned into a giveaway to the rich - most middle class types today aren't paying enough interest and don't have enough other itemized exemptions to take much advantage of it.
We're at the point that something like a 22% flat tax with a $10k initial deduction would be revenue neutral. It would help the middle class, but really soak those .1%ers who lose the advantage structuring their income through long term capital gains.
-
I'm sure as hell not getting $14100 per year in subsidies or transfer payments.
AFAIK, the only money I've ever received from .gov was a few thousand in tuition tax credits. I would have rather had lower taxes without the credits, because the tuition might have been cheaper.
I wonder if they are including the money we don't pay because of tax deductions and personal exemptions? (still doesn't add up to $14k)
-
I wonder if they are including the money we don't pay because of tax deductions and personal exemptions? (still doesn't add up to $14k)
Tax deductions and credits probably do feature in there, especially the earned income credit. You might not get much, but the barely employed single mother of 3 kids gets a heck of a lot...
-
I'm sure as hell not getting $14100 per year in subsidies or transfer payments.
AFAIK, the only money I've ever received from .gov was a few thousand in tuition tax credits. I would have rather had lower taxes without the credits, because the tuition might have been cheaper.
I wonder if they are including the money we don't pay because of tax deductions and personal exemptions? (still doesn't add up to $14k)
Apparently another fourth quintiler... I sure don't see $14k in .gov give backs anywhere in my numbers. My house is paid for, my kids are long grown, no student loans. I'd also have to question if they included other taxes like social security and Medicare deductions and any state or local taxes in the total of how much is paid out.
-
I'm sure as hell not getting $14100 per year in subsidies or transfer payments.
AFAIK, the only money I've ever received from .gov was a few thousand in tuition tax credits. I would have rather had lower taxes without the credits, because the tuition might have been cheaper.
I wonder if they are including the money we don't pay because of tax deductions and personal exemptions? (still doesn't add up to $14k)
Do you take the child tax credit? Any of the other myriad of credits?
FWIW, that actually comes fairly close when you factor what I make, vs the federal income taxes I pay. FICA and all state/local taxes are on top of that of course.
-
Do you take the child tax credit? Any of the other myriad of credits?
FWIW, that actually comes fairly close when you factor what I make, vs the federal income taxes I pay. FICA and all state/local taxes are on top of that of course.
No, just personal exemptions. And itemized deductions; mostly for state taxes and charitable contributions. All the tax credits I've taken in my entire life probably add up to less than $20000.
-
Curious if they are considering things like pre-tax deductions like health care?
-
I'm not for increasing taxes on the 1%. I'm interested in increasing the taxes on the .01%, where taxes paid tend to actually invert as tax shelters and the 15% cap on long term capital gains exceeds income from things like salary.
After that, well, it's to cost cutting, balancing the budget, while engaging in policies to encourage full employment. If various low-paying businesses have trouble hiring people at minimum wage, they'll eventually pay more or go under from not being able to provide goods&services due to shutdowns from not enough workers.
If you want to tax the people at the very top, don't define them in terms of income. You might find that many wealthy people have zero income, but lots of capital gains and other stuff. I recall a review of Nancy Pelosi's taxes one year and a great portion of her wealth was in tax free municipal bonds. It wasn't a great interest rate, but it was a lot of money.
Taxing income is just a way to inhibit middle class people from getting rich.
I would personally rather see the income tax go away entirely. Think about how many things in our society are defined by income tax regulations.
-
I don't think you can get rid of 'all' exemptions, but I remember reading recently that, especially today, the home mortgage tax credit has turned into a giveaway to the rich - most middle class types today aren't paying enough interest and don't have enough other itemized exemptions to take much advantage of it.
We're at the point that something like a 22% flat tax with a $10k initial deduction would be revenue neutral. It would help the middle class, but really soak those .1%ers who lose the advantage structuring their income through long term capital gains.
I get a mortgage interest deduction. It does help quite a bit. Do have any articles on this "giveaway to the rich"? I would like to see that.
22% is a higher final income tax rate than I have paid ever (not counting SS, FICA, etc). Do we really need to pay taxes based on Obama's wild spending? Originally, the flat tax was revenue neutral at about 10%.
I am single filing with TurboTax. No real deductions beyond mortgage, personal, and other taxes. 22% is way way too high.
-
I don't think you can get rid of 'all' exemptions, but I remember reading recently that, especially today, the home mortgage tax credit has turned into a giveaway to the rich - most middle class types today aren't paying enough interest and don't have enough other itemized exemptions to take much advantage of it.
We're at the point that something like a 22% flat tax with a $10k initial deduction would be revenue neutral. It would help the middle class, but really soak those .1%ers who lose the advantage structuring their income through long term capital gains.
Drop the shelters and exemptions and the overall tax rate should go down.
-
If you want to tax the people at the very top, don't define them in terms of income. You might find that many wealthy people have zero income, but lots of capital gains and other stuff. I recall a review of Nancy Pelosi's taxes one year and a great portion of her wealth was in tax free municipal bonds. It wasn't a great interest rate, but it was a lot of money.
I specifically mentioned 'long term capital gains', which are currently capped at 15%. Municipal bonds and such are another shelter - they're untaxed. Not sure if I want to get rid of that advantage*, but it's something to consider. Capital gains are, as far as I'm concerned, still income, just 'unearned' as opposed to 'earned' which takes the form of salary, sale of services and goods produced. Take an apartment manager who owns the apartments he rents. The part of the rental income that comes from his working as a manager is earned income. The rental income that would go to the owners if it wasn't him is 'unearned'. That doesn't mean that unearned is bad, just treated differently tax wise.
*If you eliminate that deduction municipal loans would have to compete with commercial bonds, increasing the percentage that local governments need to pay in order to borrow money. Meaning that you'd end up paying more for necessary(and unnecessary) improvements by local governments.
Taxing income is just a way to inhibit middle class people from getting rich.
The problem you have today is that a doctor with a practice might be paying the marginal 40% rate(effectively 30-35%), but Bill Gates, where effectively 100% of his income is capital gains today, is paying 15%, which is what a lower-middle class type making under $36k is paying. Effective rate, Bill Gates(and others in his bracket) are paying the same percentage of income(earned and unearned) that people earning a mere $50k/year are.
This means that our tax system is currently rather majorly regressive - there's a huge 40% HUMP you have to get over, but once you're over it you're clear sailing as far as income goes(15%).
I would personally rather see the income tax go away entirely. Think about how many things in our society are defined by income tax regulations.
I agree, I just didn't think it was time to roll out the fairtax spiel.
I get a mortgage interest deduction. It does help quite a bit. Do have any articles on this "giveaway to the rich"? I would like to see that.
Hmm... I may have been wrong (http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?ContentID=147987) or hit an unreliable source. The NAHB says that 2/3rds of the benefit goes to those who earn less than $200k and that they benefit more from it. I just know that when I bought my house I only got to take the deduction 1 year - not enough to itemize beyond that. On the other hand, there's some movement to replace it with a credit (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3948), which I think has some merit.
I should probably put it in the context that if I wouldn't just eliminate it - I'd add a housing credit to tax returns. IE rich or poor, everybody gets the same amount.
22% is a higher final income tax rate than I have paid ever (not counting SS, FICA, etc). Do we really need to pay taxes based on Obama's wild spending? Originally, the flat tax was revenue neutral at about 10%.
I am single filing with TurboTax. No real deductions beyond mortgage, personal, and other taxes. 22% is way way too high.
22% is what I remembered off the top of my head for fairtax(which is actually 23% from their site). The trick is that I was counting ALL income taxes, so yes, I was including SS, FICA, and such. Assuming you're not stinking rich you'd still pay less than 22-23% because I'm drastically increasing the standard deduction. Currently it's $6.2k, and I propose increasing it to $10-12k for a single person.
Example:
$80k income
-$10k standard deduction
$70k*.22=$15.4k in tax
Effective tax rate: 19% of gross income.
Currently:
$80k income
-$6.2k
$73.8k-> $5,081.25+$9,225=$14,306.25, 18%.
Hmm... Might need to kick the standard deductible up to $15-20k. Would get quite a few people out of paying income taxes at all, but that might not be a bad thing - saves a lot of people from having to file income taxes, and sadly a lot of minimum wage types pay the preparers obscene amounts of money just to do their taxes.
As for the rate itself - it's not just Obama's spending either. We have a couple wars to pay for, as well as servicing and paying down our government's debt. I will make no bones that I'm a proponent of a balanced budget and elimination of debt, so while I support elimination of wasteful spending I do not support dropping tax rates/income until we have actually STOPPED borrowing money.
Drop the shelters and exemptions and the overall tax rate should go down.
Yeah, it's just that, as I mentioned to MechAg94, I'm a balanced budget freak. No reducing income until we're paying down the debt. Eliminate the shortfall, start paying down our debt, THEN I'll support dropping taxes as the costs of servicing our interest drops.
-
Yeah, it's just that, as I mentioned to MechAg94, I'm a balanced budget freak. No reducing income until we're paying down the debt. Eliminate the shortfall, start paying down our debt, THEN I'll support dropping taxes as the costs of servicing our interest drops.
Republicans like to ridicule "tax and spend Democrats" -- and perhaps they should. But spend-and-dont-tax Republicans are even worse because they run up the debt even faster.
-
Yeah, it's just that, as I mentioned to MechAg94, I'm a balanced budget freak. No reducing income until we're paying down the debt. Eliminate the shortfall, start paying down our debt, THEN I'll support dropping taxes as the costs of servicing our interest drops.
I think income to the feds will go up, but the people in the middle will pay less income tax. The wealthier people will be paying more.
-
I think income to the feds will go up, but the people in the middle will pay less income tax. The wealthier people will be paying more.
Somebody somewhere should have a database of 'sample taxpayers' that you can play with different scenarios and it'll tell you how much to expect. Well, before people start reacting and changing their money management to avoid/exploit the new tax rules.
My general proposals:
1. Put unearned income(IE capital gains and such) into the same progressive tax ladders as earned. 'Separate but equal' ladders, basically. First $10-20k/year* is tax free, then it climbs up the ladder. If you make over $1M a year you should pay around the same in taxes no matter if it's salary or investment income.
2. Transform the mortgage interest deduction into a housing credit. We shouldn't be encouraging people to stay in debt. We shouldn't penalize the poor or those who have to move often for their employment and thus rent.
3. Flatten the tax system as much as possible - increase the standard deduction/exemption, get rid of lots of the steps.
4. Like I've said before, keep it at a minimum revenue neutral, if not increasing income(through increased taxes on capital gains) until we've managed to balance the budget. I support cutting federal expenses while we're at it, but getting into details on that would be a different thread. At this point I'm also doubtful that we could cut enough, fast enough, to balance the budget.
*Exact amount is highly negotiable. Consider it a yardstick
-
My 2 cents:
1. I don't want to put anything more into the taxable income bucket. There is enough crap that is taxed. If you do that, you will soon find your self paying tax on every penny you make when you sell your house (or anything else for that matter). Don't assume the minimums that exist today on capital gains will stay there. I would rather remove taxable stuff that I pay like interest income.
2. If you change it to a credit, you just open the door for more screwed messes or back door welfare such as what the earned income tax credit has become. It should be a deduction on actual expenses if it remains at all.
3. Flattening the tax rates would be great, but with the current group of political nutjobs in D.C., don't expect to get something out of it you like. The legislation would probably end up at 20,000 pages or more and be just as bad as it was before.
4. There are past examples of the FedGov taking in more money. Did they pay down the debt or did they just spend more? I think you know the answer. Giving the Govt more money won't help without better governors.
No good changes are likely with the current people in D.C. Change the people and a lot better changes are possible than what you mentioned.
Somebody somewhere should have a database of 'sample taxpayers' that you can play with different scenarios and it'll tell you how much to expect. Well, before people start reacting and changing their money management to avoid/exploit the new tax rules.
My general proposals:
1. Put unearned income(IE capital gains and such) into the same progressive tax ladders as earned. 'Separate but equal' ladders, basically. First $10-20k/year* is tax free, then it climbs up the ladder. If you make over $1M a year you should pay around the same in taxes no matter if it's salary or investment income.
2. Transform the mortgage interest deduction into a housing credit. We shouldn't be encouraging people to stay in debt. We shouldn't penalize the poor or those who have to move often for their employment and thus rent.
3. Flatten the tax system as much as possible - increase the standard deduction/exemption, get rid of lots of the steps.
4. Like I've said before, keep it at a minimum revenue neutral, if not increasing income(through increased taxes on capital gains) until we've managed to balance the budget. I support cutting federal expenses while we're at it, but getting into details on that would be a different thread. At this point I'm also doubtful that we could cut enough, fast enough, to balance the budget.
*Exact amount is highly negotiable. Consider it a yardstick
-
I will make no bones that I'm a proponent of a balanced budget and elimination of debt, so while I support elimination of wasteful spending I do not support dropping tax rates/income until we have actually STOPPED borrowing money.
A big part of that would be foreign aid. IMO, no borrowing money to give to other countries would be the logical first step there, and were there ever a Constitutional Convention, no charity while in debt would be one hard, fast and unambiguous rule I would push hard for.
-
A big part of that would be foreign aid. IMO, no borrowing money to give to other countries would be the logical first step there, and were there ever a Constitutional Convention, no charity while in debt would be one hard, fast and unambiguous rule I would push hard for.
The problem with this is that eliminating foreign aid, while perhaps a worthy start, wouldn't even come CLOSE to closing the deficit.
Foreign Aid: Around $23B (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2013/05/06/how-much-foreign-aid-does-us-give-away/)
Deficit: $680B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget).
Foreign aid, all of it, is only 3% of the problem. You'd probably save more money simply providing personnel to and empowering the various auditing organizations to actually prevent wasteful spending.
-
Years ago I read that a simple freeze on Federal spending would go a long way toward balancing the budget.
Maybe I misremember but, I thought I also read that the founders were OK with taxing what we call unearned income ie gains on investments. On the other hand they considered compensation for a persons labor synonymous with their 'life' and off limits to governmental greedy grubby hands.
-
Yeah, if they would just freeze all budgets and end any and all automatic increases, the budget would trend down versus revenue due to inflation and growth.
-
Yeah, if they would just freeze all budgets and end any and all automatic increases, the budget would trend down versus revenue due to inflation and growth.
Except for the pesky Social Security and Medicare, that would work. Under the current arrangement, those cannot be frozen and will be devouring an ever larger portion of the budget.
-
The problem with this is that eliminating foreign aid, while perhaps a worthy start, wouldn't even come CLOSE to closing the deficit.
Foreign Aid: Around $23B (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/blog/2013/05/06/how-much-foreign-aid-does-us-give-away/)
Deficit: $680B (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget).
Foreign aid, all of it, is only 3% of the problem. You'd probably save more money simply providing personnel to and empowering the various auditing organizations to actually prevent wasteful spending.
Like everything else, how much is also spent indirectly on foreign aid? People to administer the contributions, etc.
Besides, divide it down to normal people problems; if you know you'll be $6,800 short of being able to pay off your debts this year, are you still going to be handing out $230 donations?
-
Except for the pesky Social Security and Medicare, that would work. Under the current arrangement, those cannot be frozen and will be devouring an ever larger portion of the budget.
SS and Medicare/caid are going to destroy the country unless we kill them off. Talking about anything else is like berating someone for throwing a penny in a fountain while doing nothing about the fact that they're lighting up Cuban cigars with $100's. It's all show and no go.
-
SS and Medicare/caid are going to destroy the country unless we kill them off. Talking about anything else is like berating someone for throwing a penny in a fountain while doing nothing about the fact that they're lighting up Cuban cigars with $100's. It's all show and no go.
Yep. Social Security, Medicare, the Military, and soon!, Federal Debt payments, those are the big worrisome parts. Forms of welfare only make up about 12% of the budget. (To be fair, debt payments only currently make up 6%, but I'm betting that's going to balloon up rapidly, just as SS and Medicare are.)
The first three comprise 65% of the Federal Budget.
-
SS and Medicare/caid are going to destroy the country unless we kill them off.
The sad thing is that medical care in our country is so FUBAR that if we paid median EU amounts per resident the federal government already spends 90% of what it would need to for single-payer UHC, and the states more than make up the remaining 10%, meaning that the average medical cost per citizen could be zero.
I'm not going to say that single-payer UHC is the best alternative, because I don't think it is, but I also know my ideal would never happen and it'd still be better than what we have.
-
Yep. Social Security, Medicare, the Military, and soon!, Federal Debt payments, those are the big worrisome parts. Forms of welfare only make up about 12% of the budget. (To be fair, debt payments only currently make up 6%, but I'm betting that's going to balloon up rapidly, just as SS and Medicare are.)
The first three comprise 65% of the Federal Budget.
Social Security includes forms of welfare:
1) there are a lot of people getting money other than retired people.
2) there is also the welfare for all the beaucrats that work for the SS Administration. I bet they soak up the vast majority of that budget.
-
Social Security includes forms of welfare:
1) there are a lot of people getting money other than retired people.
2) there is also the welfare for all the beaucrats that work for the SS Administration. I bet they soak up the vast majority of that budget.
Sorry, I should have made that "other forms of welfare." Thanks for the correction.
Also unnoted in my post was the 8% spent on retirees, both Military and civilian.
-
Social Security includes forms of welfare:
1) there are a lot of people getting money other than retired people.
2) there is also the welfare for all the beaucrats that work for the SS Administration. I bet they soak up the vast majority of that budget.
You'd lose your bet. For the amount of money that passes through their hands they capture surprisingly little of it via bureaucracy. Monthly payments direct deposited into bank accounts, with the amount calculated by computer doesn't take a lot of manpower.
As for the 'other than retired people', I've met a few. You have my great-aunt, who's retarded. Stuck around the equivalent of a seven year old, she needs to be in a group home. SS-Disability. Same with my grandfather before he reached the age to be retired-retired; the combination of polio and an industrial accident, both affecting his spine, left him effectively unable to work. It was the state of NY that determined that he'd be dead in 7 years(on average) after the accident and decided against re-training. 40+ years later that decision seems a bit foolish, but he's made relative good use of his time helping to raise his grandchildren and working within his limits at charities. For example, he can't work as a cook for ~40 hours a week, but until recently he could manage a single meal for a couple hundred(with assistants) 1-2 nights a week, most weeks.
I'm actually fine with social security acting like a national disability insurance/benefits program.
-
Well SS isn't going anywhere anytime soon so the country needs to stop the mass charade. It is a retirement welfare scheme we've been coerced to finance.
Other than letting it crash and burn the only real course of action is to lift the salary cap on what is taxed. Means testing cannot save the system, the numbers don't add up.
-
Well SS isn't going anywhere anytime soon so the country needs to stop the mass charade. It is a retirement welfare scheme we've been coerced to finance.
Other than letting it crash and burn the only real course of action is to lift the salary cap on what is taxed. Means testing cannot save the system, the numbers don't add up.
And I also vote to raise the age at which you collect full benefits to 70.
-
And I also vote to raise the age at which you collect full benefits to 70.
Isn't it already on it's way up there?
-
Isn't it already on it's way up there?
I was born in 1960, and can start collecting full benefits at age 67.
-
I was born in 1960, and can start collecting full benefits at age 67.
Whippersnapper. ;) (1959. 66 years and something months, don't remember but I think it's 10 months)
-
I was born in 1960, and can start collecting full benefits at age 67.
That's what I meant. Each year later you're born right now, you have to wait a another month or so to collect benefits.
-
Have you seen actual numbers or are you making assumptions based on what it ought to require? I saw one link where the SS itself says administration costs are low, but it doesn't really explain how they determined that. I think it could be reduced quite a bit without affecting things a great deal. The beneficiaries have been expanded over the years.
I don't think the FedGov should be doling out welfare for anyone. For everyone you name,there are 5 others who dont need it. I think there are better ways to do that sort of thing.
You'd lose your bet. For the amount of money that passes through their hands they capture surprisingly little of it via bureaucracy. Monthly payments direct deposited into bank accounts, with the amount calculated by computer doesn't take a lot of manpower.
As for the 'other than retired people', I've met a few. You have my great-aunt, who's retarded. Stuck around the equivalent of a seven year old, she needs to be in a group home. SS-Disability. Same with my grandfather before he reached the age to be retired-retired; the combination of polio and an industrial accident, both affecting his spine, left him effectively unable to work. It was the state of NY that determined that he'd be dead in 7 years(on average) after the accident and decided against re-training. 40+ years later that decision seems a bit foolish, but he's made relative good use of his time helping to raise his grandchildren and working within his limits at charities. For example, he can't work as a cook for ~40 hours a week, but until recently he could manage a single meal for a couple hundred(with assistants) 1-2 nights a week, most weeks.
I'm actually fine with social security acting like a national disability insurance/benefits program.
-
Have you seen actual numbers or are you making assumptions based on what it ought to require?
Actual numbers, though admittedly from ages ago. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration#Operations) lists them at .39% of assets, which is in line with low-cost mutual funds.
Administrative expenses as a percentage of expenditures is .7% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Administration#Operations). The disability insurance trust fund is substantially more expensive, but that should be expected as you increase means-testing. SS-Old Age only checks your age. SS-Disability requires a complex application and review.
Even CATO admits that Social Security is cheaper administratively (http://www.cato.org/publications/social-security-choice-paper/administration-costs-relative-efficiency-public-private-social-security-systems).
I saw one link where the SS itself says administration costs are low, but it doesn't really explain how they determined that. I think it could be reduced quite a bit without affecting things a great deal. The beneficiaries have been expanded over the years.
Mostly due to increases in longevity meaning that you can expect to receive it in your lifetime, as opposed to a 50% chance of dying before that happens. "I think" isn't a strong assertion. What do you propose reforming about social security to reduce administrative expenses? Can you identify services that you'd cease to provide? Overpaid workers you'd eliminate/force pay cuts on?
I don't think the FedGov should be doling out welfare for anyone. For everyone you name,there are 5 others who dont need it. I think there are better ways to do that sort of thing.
What alternative do you propose? Keep in mind that, as a society, we've determined that we'd really like to keep people from dying homeless in the street. Matter of fact, each homeless person tends to cost the government close to $40k a year (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/mar/12/shaun-donovan/hud-secretary-says-homeless-person-costs-taxpayers/). I've heard of higher figures. It's cheaper to give them shelter. (http://www.endhomelessness.org/pages/cost_of_homelessness)
Though perhaps I should ask what you consider 'welfare'? Any payment/goods to an individual or family not in exchange for services/goods provided to the government? Do you consider disability payments to be welfare payments?
I'd love to see SS out of the retirement game, but I think that disability needs to stay. How do you propose to ensure that my great-aunt(born mentally disabled) is taken care of? Her parents have passed away. She's never worked at a serious job, she never really can. One can certainly argue about the fakers on disability, but keep in mind I supported providing the administration with more auditors so long as said auditors can save enough money to justify the expense of their employment. IE an employee that earns $100k, costs $250k, but finds and eliminates $1M in fraud/abuse a year gets to keep his job.
Even though I'd like to see SS out of the retirement business, even I think that it would have to be a gradual thing. Workers have all paid far too much into it to NOT get anything back. Instead what I'd do is freeze benefits at something like .5% below inflation and have the age increase for eligibility never stop. Put some rules in place to really make sure people are investing and that the money is sheltered - it should NOT be easy for fraudsters to get to it.
-
Do you think it is the federal govt's job to keep these people from dying homeless in the street? Are you saying that neither you nor any of your relatives would lift a finger to help the relatives you have that need help, but sit back and wait for the federal govt to do it? I think it would be better done at the personal or local level. Most things would be.
I am also curious what the SSA defines as an assett. I thought the only assetts they have are IOU's.
-
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-costs-social-security
The real costs of Social Security far exceed the taxes collected: The compulsory pay-as-you-go retirement system has denied people the choice of using those funds for private investment, diminished the culture of responsibility and strengthened the redistributive state. People have become more dependent on government, and the retirement decision has become politicized. Social Security now accounts for 20% of the U.S. budget, with expenditures of $686 billion last year.
The U.S. system has accumulated surpluses, but they have been used to expand the size and scope of government. The so-called trust fund has no real assets, only IOUs that taxpayers must eventually pay.
-
Workers have all paid far too much into it to NOT get anything back.
Cry me a fcking river. I'm currently paying far too much that I'll never get back.
Math doesn't care about Baby Boomer's feelz and how much they think they're owed. We can either default on the obligation or crank up the printing presses until the currency is inflated to the point of being without value.
-
I'd love to see SS out of the retirement game, but I think that disability needs to stay. How do you propose to ensure that my great-aunt(born mentally disabled) is taken care of? Her parents have passed away. She's never worked at a serious job, she never really can. One can certainly argue about the fakers on disability, but keep in mind I supported providing the administration with more auditors so long as said auditors can save enough money to justify the expense of their employment. IE an employee that earns $100k, costs $250k, but finds and eliminates $1M in fraud/abuse a year gets to keep his job.
Even though I'd like to see SS out of the retirement business, even I think that it would have to be a gradual thing. Workers have all paid far too much into it to NOT get anything back. Instead what I'd do is freeze benefits at something like .5% below inflation and have the age increase for eligibility never stop. Put some rules in place to really make sure people are investing and that the money is sheltered - it should NOT be easy for fraudsters to get to it.
I don't think SS can easily be removed immediately. There would be a lot people objecting who paid into the system expect to get return (like my parents). But I think it is a screwy system that should be eliminated eventually if not right now. Younger people need to be given a means to move off of it.
Yes, I do consider the disability payments welfare. I don't see the problem with that. Call it what it is. It shouldn't be part of SS. The reason I think it should be paid by local govts is because if the locals are paying taxes to the local govt to cover it, they might have more interest in helping the local auditors weed out the freeloaders. Also, people who don't need it might actually consider they are taking money from their neighbors instead of some faceless FedGov. Also, local govts have more limited taxation and are more likely to control costs.
-
I guy who has a reltaive of his wife who is disabled and lived with his mother and received a check. He did have a real issue with his legs, but he could have gotten past it and worked a job. He was just either lazy or didn't care so he never really tried to get over it or work despite the disability. If he wasn't receiving a check, I think he would have been forced dealt with it.
The whole thing is a feel good, emotional issue and people don't want to cut off the money. What they are really saying is they don't want to deal with it so lets get the govt to send them other people's money so we can feel good that disabled people are okay. Just passing the buck. I'll refer back to the phrase about a diminished culture of responsibility. It covers a lot of issues.
-
I don't think SS can easily be removed immediately. There would be a lot people objecting who paid into the system expect to get return (like my parents). But I think it is a screwy system that should be eliminated eventually if not right now. Younger people need to be given a means to move off of it.
Literally not possible. Boomers are an enormous cohort that had very few children. Economic policies have ensured that record numbers of that much smaller cohort are un or under employed. So fewer and fewer people making less and less money are going to be trying to prop up a vast quantity of boomers. They can't even fulfill their current obligations, let alone do that AND put more aside for a separate retirement system.
-
Do you think it is the federal govt's job to keep these people from dying homeless in the street?
Read my post - I said society has decided that.
Are you saying that neither you nor any of your relatives would lift a finger to help the relatives you have that need help, but sit back and wait for the federal govt to do it? I think it would be better done at the personal or local level. Most things would be.
My relatives are not your relatives are not their relatives. There are many non-supportive families out there. Some actually don't have any surviving close relatives, nor contact with their non-close relatives.
The local level would be fine and dandy except that it's much easier for the 'local level' to become overwhelmed if there's a localized problem. There's a reason why insurance companies distribute their risk around the world through re-insurance schemes.
I am also curious what the SSA defines as an assett. I thought the only assetts they have are IOU's.
Fed.gov IOUs at that. They're not even diversified into things like hospital bonds.
I don't think SS can easily be removed immediately. There would be a lot people objecting who paid into the system expect to get return (like my parents). But I think it is a screwy system that should be eliminated eventually if not right now. Younger people need to be given a means to move off of it.
Thus my proposal, which I didn't complete. Cap the income at .5% below inflation, so the benefit it provides is always decreasing, if slowly. People would have to depend upon it less. Keep increasing the age requirement, so again, fewer people ever get it, for shorter periods of time. I figure something like 2 months older per year. We need to add around 35 years to completely eliminate it, but that would take 210. But barring extreme medical development it'd be irrelevant due to the inflation cap and median life expectancy taking 'most' out of the pool long before that.
Once you're over the 'hump', start diverting the money into TSP type investment bodies for the individuals. Eventually you can decrease the percentages, though I'd still charge for the disability payment.
It shouldn't be part of SS. The reason I think it should be paid by local govts is because if the locals are paying taxes to the local govt to cover it, they might have more interest in helping the local auditors weed out the freeloaders. Also, people who don't need it might actually consider they are taking money from their neighbors instead of some faceless FedGov. Also, local govts have more limited taxation and are more likely to control costs.
...I come to much different conclusions than you.
1. It now being a 'local money' problem, you exasperate the problem that has been seen with homeless - they'd rather pay for the bus ticket to somewhere, anywhere, outside their 'domain' to get rid of the expensive types. Shuttling helps nobody.
2. Poor areas would be isolated from rich areas, and unable to pay for the services necessary
3. In many cases 'local governments' have MORE taxation powers than the fed.gov. They're pretty much restricted to income tax. Local governments have income tax, sales tax, property tax, regulatory fees, etc...
4. 'Consider they are taking money from their neighbors', yeah right...
Literally not possible. Boomers are an enormous cohort that had very few children. Economic policies have ensured that record numbers of that much smaller cohort are un or under employed. So fewer and fewer people making less and less money are going to be trying to prop up a vast quantity of boomers. They can't even fulfill their current obligations, let alone do that AND put more aside for a separate retirement system.
Correct. Which is why I proposed a system that would take around a person's life to go away. 'Everybody' alive now who makes it to their median life expectancy will receive at least some of it. Those currently under 18 won't be able to depend upon it as their primary means of retirement income, like is currently the case, but they'll get some. Might have to wait until they're 85, but it'll be there. While we're at it we might have to increase the disability portion.