Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!

Not to be a fact monster, but where does the 50% come from anyway. Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes. He raised 11 different taxes. If you are talking about the 1986 tax reform, it was as a much Bill Bradley as anyone and it was projected to be revenue neutral. Reagan reduced personal income tax rates on those who made a lot of money - but no one paid those rates anyway. That is why we created the alternative minimum tax in 1969.

Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes.

Sounds serious! What were the SS rates before and after the Reagan hikes?

 

[Centinel]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

How do you phase out SS? Some people pay and collect no benefits?

Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

One of the foundations of Social Security is that it would not be means-tested. FDR did not want damn politicians deciding who did and who didn't need benefits. If you are going to make SS a welfare program, why not just end it, and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program. Millions of Americans aren't eligible for SS. Don't you want a welfare program that serves all Americans?

 

[Centinel]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!

Not to be a fact monster, but where does the 50% come from anyway. Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes. He raised 11 different taxes. If you are talking about the 1986 tax reform, it was as a much Bill Bradley as anyone and it was projected to be revenue neutral. Reagan reduced personal income tax rates on those who made a lot of money - but no one paid those rates anyway. That is why we created the alternative minimum tax in 1969.

Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes.

Sounds serious! What were the SS rates before and after the Reagan hikes?

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

payroll taxes rose from 13.4% to 15.3%. The self-employed tax rose from 9.3% to 15.3%.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

How many were cheated when the eligibility age was 65 and the average life expectancy was 60?

Like I said, only 5.4% of the US population was over 65 at the time SS was enacted.

In 1965, it was 9%.

Today, that figure is 14%.

This is an obviously unsustainable trend with a screamingly obvious solution.

You are looking at the life expectancy of a baby - which is quite irrelevant to Social Security. The bulk of the increase in life expectancy occurs before the age of 5. What is your obvious solution - play the HungerGames with 5 year-olds? The decrease in infant mortality basically makes the system more solvent rather than less.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The problem is bigger than you are willing to consider.

 

[Centinel]

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The US government can never be insolvent. The US government can pay benefits to those who paid in, up to the amount they paid in. And after everyone has either died or been paid back, the system has been phased out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!

Not to be a fact monster, but where does the 50% come from anyway. Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes. He raised 11 different taxes. If you are talking about the 1986 tax reform, it was as a much Bill Bradley as anyone and it was projected to be revenue neutral. Reagan reduced personal income tax rates on those who made a lot of money - but no one paid those rates anyway. That is why we created the alternative minimum tax in 1969.

Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes.

Sounds serious! What were the SS rates before and after the Reagan hikes?

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

payroll taxes rose from 13.4% to 15.3%. The self-employed tax rose from 9.3% to 15.3%.

payroll taxes rose from 13.4% to 15.3%

Thanks. So for the typical worker, an extra 0.95% came out of their paycheck.

I thought you said, "Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The problem is bigger than you are willing to consider.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The US government can never be insolvent. The US government can pay benefits to those who paid in, up to the amount they paid in. And after everyone has either died or been paid back, the system has been phased out.

True, but Social Security is not part of the US government. It is a contributory benefits system run by the US government. Not all Americans are eligible, so it is not reasonable to expect the government to bail-out the system.

 

[Centinel]

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The US government can never be insolvent. The US government can pay benefits to those who paid in, up to the amount they paid in. And after everyone has either died or been paid back, the system has been phased out.

True, but Social Security is not part of the US government.

Of course it's part of the federal government. It was created by a federal law, the social security act of 1935.

 

[g5000]

The more you tax something, the less of it you get. That's why I favor getting rid of the income tax, which is a tax on production, and enacting the Fair Tax, which is a tax on consumption.

Ted Cruz's tax is a Value Added Tax, though he vigorously denies it. But it is, Ted. It is.

However, a VAT is also a tax on consumption. So that's cool.

The thing I like about a Fair Tax is that you cannot hide a tax increase, and everyone has to pay for it. Everyone.

It's the death of gimme gimme gimme and make that guy over there pay for it. THAT is what we need more than anything else.

So, you want free puppies for hookers? Fine. But we'll have to increase the Fair Tax another point.

"Wait...WHAT!?!"

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

payroll taxes rose from 13.4% to 15.3%

Thanks. So for the typical worker, an extra 0.95% came out of their paycheck.

I thought you said, "Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes"?

Hmmm 15.3-13.4 = 1.9. .95% comes from their paycheck, and .95% comes in the form of lower wages. That is about $800 for an average worker today. If that isn't much, we can repeat the rinse cycle, and SS is solvent for another 50-60 years. He raised the income tax from 10 to 15 percent for lower income Americans. The gas tax was increased. In exchange, for lower tax rates we lost virtually all of our deductions. The working class took a net increase in taxes.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The problem is bigger than you are willing to consider.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

That would have been sound advice for Social Security ... in 1940. If you don't have an SS tax revenue, you can't pay benefits - that is why it is called pay as you go. If you don't pay there is no go.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Of course it's part of the federal government. It was created by a federal law, the social security act of 1935.

If it were part of the government, everyone would be eligible. If it were part of the government, the government would be liable for its promises. It is a contributory benefits system run by the government. The government can force you to participate, but you can't hold it accountable for it success or failure.

The idea that it is part of the government is wishful thinking by people who want to make the obligations of the system an obligation of the government. The government forces you to buy auto insurance, but that does not make Geico a part of the government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

payroll taxes rose from 13.4% to 15.3%

Thanks. So for the typical worker, an extra 0.95% came out of their paycheck.

I thought you said, "Reagan made massive tax increases on lower income workers, specifically in the form of high SS taxes"?

Hmmm 15.3-13.4 = 1.9. .95% comes from their paycheck, and .95% comes in the form of lower wages. That is about $800 for an average worker today. If that isn't much, we can repeat the rinse cycle, and SS is solvent for another 50-60 years. He raised the income tax from 10 to 15 percent for lower income Americans. The gas tax was increased. In exchange, for lower tax rates we lost virtually all of our deductions. The working class took a net increase in taxes.

Hmmm 15.3-13.4 = 1.9. .95% comes from their paycheck, and .95% comes in the form of lower wages.

So that was the massive tax increase?

He raised the income tax from 10 to 15 percent for lower income Americans.

I need your definition of "lower income Americans", to confirm your claim.

In exchange, for lower tax rates we lost virtually all of our deductions.

Lower income Americans itemized their deductions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits. Gradually changing the retirement age does nothing. Gradually increasing retirement age to 70 means that SS will have been insolvent for 25 years before NRA reaches 70. Benefits today return about 1%, so there is very little for you to limit benefits on.

The problem is bigger than you are willing to consider.

I have bad news for you - if you stop collecting SS taxes how will you pay any benefits.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

That would have been sound advice for Social Security ... in 1940. If you don't have an SS tax revenue, you can't pay benefits - that is why it is called pay as you go. If you don't pay there is no go.

That would have been sound advice for Social Security ... in 1940.

Was it in a hole in 1940?

If you don't have an SS tax revenue, you can't pay benefits

Why not?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it's part of the federal government. It was created by a federal law, the social security act of 1935.

If it were part of the government, everyone would be eligible. If it were part of the government, the government would be liable for its promises. It is a contributory benefits system run by the government. The government can force you to participate, but you can't hold it accountable for it success or failure.

The idea that it is part of the government is wishful thinking by people who want to make the obligations of the system an obligation of the government. The government forces you to buy auto insurance, but that does not make Geico a part of the government.

If it were part of the government, everyone would be eligible.

Is the Bureau of Indian Affairs part of the government? The VA?

 

[Brain357]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

Essentially you want voters to agree that their kids who can't vote will clean-up the mess that we have made.

No. We can clean it up. Stop collecting SSI taxes. Gradually raise the retirement age by ten years. Limit benefits to what an individual has already paid in. Eventually there will be no one left who has ever paid in. System is now phased out.

I think we would end up with lots of really broke old people.