Social Insecurity

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2013 8:06:18 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Jan 3, 2013 0:01:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

VB, my stats are usually good, right? you should know that by now.

I acknowledge your stats are usually good.
I also acknowledge your heart is "chasing windmills" in some of your political ideals, imo.

you are entitled to your opinion, of course- but my ideals are not political. i am a political pragmatist. i am very idealistic economically, however. i have this crazy idea that we should pay what we owe for our shitty government. i know- NUTS right?

You are a little too far left in your ideals concerning people who absolutly refuse to help theirselves on their own, and you expect American Government to take care of them.

if you say so. i am actually in favor of people taking care of themselves. for example, i am against permanent unemployment. but that is not really a problem, is it? i am against permanent welfare of any kind.

Maybe I should have chosen a different recording, such as "Hotel California" or one of my all time favorites, "I want to take you higher" by Sly and the Family Stone, but the Mamas and the Papas pretty much come to my mind

Anyway, it's all good with you and me.
I think....

sure it is. i am good with everyone here. i have my differences with a lot of posters, but i generally consider it cordial, with a few notable exceptions.

[Value Buy]

My wife came home today.
She calculated what the 2% is going to cost us.
Instead of being mad at Obama and the Dems, she is upset with the damn Republicans who passed the bill the other night.
"It's all their fault!"
Go figure.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2013 19:23:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

My wife came home today.
She calculated what the 2% is going to cost us.
Instead of being mad at Obama and the Dems, she is upset with the damn Republicans who passed the bill the other night.
"It's all their fault!"
Go figure.

unbelievable. actually, i heard Issa talking about the CBO estimates for the Fiscal Cliff bill in a way that i have not heard a Republican talk about them in YEARS. he actually used the CBO estimates that the Bush Era Tax Cuts (which Obama will make permanent with his signature) will add $4T to the deficit over the next (10) years. so much for supply side, eh?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Or instead of charging people more (increasing the cap and/or increasing the rate) for less in benefits (i.e. increasing the age of eligibility and/or decreasing benefits), we could just privatize a portion of it. We could allow people to start pulling the privatized portion out at age 60 and have the "government" portion kick in at a higher age, such as 70 years old. If people do not have enough between their privatized portion and other accounts, they will have to continue working to subsidize their incomes (just like people who currently collect SS and work). Of course it would need to be phased in somehow in order for this to work and there would be a need to stop the fear mongering about the markets over the long term. The privatized portion could also be passed down in the form of inheritance. You could still have the survivor/disability of the current program under the "government controlled portion." The funds could be placed in target date funds, which get more conservative the closer a person gets to the age of retirement.

I think this would do a couple of things, it would help people see how investing in the market can add up over their lifetime and hopefully inspire future generations to take advantage of other retirement account options on top of the hybrid SS system. Of course people could possibly start to wonder why the "government" portion was so small compared to the privatized portion, but having the added benefits of survivor/disability coverage could be used to explain this one (just like it is now).

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 3, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 3, 2013 19:23:11 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

My wife came home today.
She calculated what the 2% is going to cost us.
Instead of being mad at Obama and the Dems, she is upset with the damn Republicans who passed the bill the other night.
"It's all their fault!"
Go figure.

unbelievable. actually, i heard Issa talking about the CBO estimates for the Fiscal Cliff bill in a way that i have not heard a Republican talk about them in YEARS. he actually used the CBO estimates that the Bush Era Tax Cuts (which Obama will make permanent with his signature) will add $4T to the deficit over the next (10) years. so much for supply side, eh?

I hate when people use this argument because it's not actually an argument. They are assuming the economy will stay the same and that lower taxes will not help with any growth at all or that people having more money in their pockets will not help with economic growth through their spending it. The argument is also acting as if people paying the government less money is the reason for the deficit while ignoring the spending side of the equation. It could equally be argued that the spending will increase the deficit.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 30, 2012 22:27:33 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I don't know about means testing social security. SS was originally designed as insurance and not welfare. Beyond that I agree with you.

I think we need to fundamentally look at what SS is, should it be walfare or insurance/pension program.

I would also raise the retirement age (including minimum retirement age of 62), get rid of the spousal benefit (the world has changed), and index the future age to the average l ife expectency.

So you want to punish those families with a SAHS if the working spouse dies?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 31, 2012 23:11:34 GMT -5 dumdeedoe said:

Baby boom was over by 1964 and after that birth rates drop to 66% of that rate. SS currently has a 2.7 trillion dollar surplus that is the cushion. The surplus should outlast the 18 year baby boom, then start re accumulating surplus afterwards.
www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html
And to fix medicare throughout the boom years it would take just a 3% payroll tax increase to stabilize that entitlement. Then after the boomers are taken care of we could redact that tax and be fine....
The other solution is to cut it by the negative amount. Or since it is a trust fund, there are no laws keeping it from issuing bonds and generating revenue on its own...

The Congressional Budget Office predicts the Medicare Trust Fund will decline from $220 billion at the end of 2012 to $67.6 billion by the end of 2022. That decline includes $178.2 billion of draw downs from the trust fund over 10 years. That comes out to a 17.8 billion a year draw. 3 percent across the board payroll tax 1.5% from you and 1.5% from your employer would cover that amount and keep the fund solvent..

Politics make simple solutions impossible. and every simple problem a crisis.

Yeah, I'm sure the government would decrease the medicare payroll tax once we get past that point....

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2013 22:32:22 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 3, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

unbelievable. actually, i heard Issa talking about the CBO estimates for the Fiscal Cliff bill in a way that i have not heard a Republican talk about them in YEARS. he actually used the CBO estimates that the Bush Era Tax Cuts (which Obama will make permanent with his signature) will add $4T to the deficit over the next (10) years. so much for supply side, eh?

I hate when people use this argument because it's not actually an argument. They are assuming the economy will stay the same and that lower taxes will not help with any growth at all or that people having more money in their pockets will not help with economic growth through their spending it. The argument is also acting as if people paying the government less money is the reason for the deficit while ignoring the spending side of the equation. It could equally be argued that the spending will increase the deficit.

Wasn't that the argument all through the Bush years? How'd that work out? ...

It does make sense at a certain point. ie, we can't have 70% tax rates. And we shouldn't go over 20% of GDP for taxes (I'd actually say 18%)... but when you are talking the highest rates we have, and what was a 14% of GDP rate (not sure what last year was??)... well then it just isn't going to have that effect to lower taxes more. 18% of GDP seems to be most efficient.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 3, 2013 22:52:11 GMT -5 oped said:

Jan 3, 2013 22:32:22 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I hate when people use this argument because it's not actually an argument. They are assuming the economy will stay the same and that lower taxes will not help with any growth at all or that people having more money in their pockets will not help with economic growth through their spending it. The argument is also acting as if people paying the government less money is the reason for the deficit while ignoring the spending side of the equation. It could equally be argued that the spending will increase the deficit.

Wasn't that the argument all through the Bush years? How'd that work out? ...

It does make sense at a certain point. ie, we can't have 70% tax rates. And we shouldn't go over 20% of GDP for taxes (I'd actually say 18%)... but when you are talking the highest rates we have, and what was a 14% of GDP rate (not sure what last year was??)... well then it just isn't going to have that effect to lower taxes more. 18% of GDP seems to be most efficient.

Wasn't what the argument through the Bush years? He had reckless spending which contributed to the deficit. People bring up the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and personally I think anytime we are in a time or war that a "war tax" should be instituted. Of course all the bubbles bursting, many from the 90's, didn't help matters. People like to pretend that Bush inherited this awesome economy, however he was just particularly unlucky in coming in at the time he was elected.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2013 22:32:22 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 3, 2013 19:47:15 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

unbelievable. actually, i heard Issa talking about the CBO estimates for the Fiscal Cliff bill in a way that i have not heard a Republican talk about them in YEARS. he actually used the CBO estimates that the Bush Era Tax Cuts (which Obama will make permanent with his signature) will add $4T to the deficit over the next (10) years. so much for supply side, eh?

I hate when people use this argument because it's not actually an argument. They are assuming the economy will stay the same and that lower taxes will not help with any growth at all or that people having more money in their pockets will not help with economic growth through their spending it. The argument is also acting as if people paying the government less money is the reason for the deficit while ignoring the spending side of the equation. It could equally be argued that the spending will increase the deficit.

well, i am sure it would. but as you quite correctly pointed out, there are two elements to spending: what it does for the economy and what it does to debt.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 3, 2013 22:52:11 GMT -5 oped said:

Jan 3, 2013 22:32:22 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

I hate when people use this argument because it's not actually an argument. They are assuming the economy will stay the same and that lower taxes will not help with any growth at all or that people having more money in their pockets will not help with economic growth through their spending it. The argument is also acting as if people paying the government less money is the reason for the deficit while ignoring the spending side of the equation. It could equally be argued that the spending will increase the deficit.

Wasn't that the argument all through the Bush years? How'd that work out? ...

It does make sense at a certain point. ie, we can't have 70% tax rates. And we shouldn't go over 20% of GDP for taxes (I'd actually say 18%)... but when you are talking the highest rates we have, and what was a 14% of GDP rate (not sure what last year was??)... well then it just isn't going to have that effect to lower taxes more. 18% of GDP seems to be most efficient.

the real argument is that lower taxes increase revenues when you are on the wrong side of T*. well, they haven't. so, that must mean that T* > 40%.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Message deleted by Politically_Incorrect12.