I would add some portability to this plan.
I am curious whether people would be in favor of the following proposal. It is only 4 pages long so please take a moment. The budget is not worked out, but assume it will be.
http://vawhigs.org/dp/County Cooperatives.pdf
If you answer NO, please post and tell me why.
thanks.
I like it but I've never been a fan of property taxes unless all other taxes are repealed.
Why is that? What don't you like about them in the presence of other taxes, yet you are ok when they stand alone?
I would point out that we have funding options at the state/local level. I was trying to reuse existing taxation systems, property taxes with income tax deductions, and state income and/or consumption taxes. We can vary the mixture and it is really up to each state. I can imagine a state that avoids property taxes and institutes income taxes to cover the cost.
Actually, I don't see much wrong with that idea...With property taxes and modern ownership, you never really own it if you have to pay every year.
A complete land tax on the other hand is explained here Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, although very very few people would support it.
Actually, I don't see much wrong with that idea...
What are the issues people have with it?
You never actually own the land itself, it's the detachment of not being able to pass it on, although you can pass on the structure and the lease can be paid for by your heirs.
Instead of:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I would add some portability to this plan.
I agree with this. There would be lots of scenarios where a guy works his entire life in NY, then retires and moves to a rural area in South Carolina. Which country pays for his Medicaid? NY City has a much higher cost of living than a rural county in the South.
I love the plan though. Anytime we can take power away from a concentrated group of people and spread it out among the populace I'm usually for it.
The county in South Carolina, the county of residence, would pay for his Medicare (sic) and Social Security. I don't think there is a portability issue here. Do you think otherwise. Explain it to me, please...
I am really glad you love it.
Well Social Security is based on how much money a person earns over their lifetime. If I work in NY City and avg 80k per year for 30 years at my job my SSA check is gonna be much higher than a guy who makes 30k per year in South Carolina.
So when I move from NY City to a rural county I bring the debt of my SSA check with me. The rural country now has to cut a check for me every month, but the rural county hasn't had the years of benefit from my property taxes (and other taxes) that NY got from me.
One of the reasons many people move when they retire is to make their retirement money (their fixed income) "go farther". It's why many people move to areas with a lower cost of living.
Let's say my Social Security check after I retire brings me $2,000 per month. And my wife also gets $2000 per month. We're gonna want to live somewhere that gets me the highest standard of living for that 4 grand per month. That will not be NY City.
That's right, I had forgotten that the amount is based on your history of income.
What do you recommend we do?
It's totally screwed up because the fed isn't actually investing my contributions.
We could freeze all amounts right now, and for those who will start collecting checks in say 5 years, will get the cost of living fixed amount, not tied to their income.
Well you could have the county where the majority of a person's career (or their residence) is spent continue paying the tab. But they would need to be kept in the loop of where the recipient now resides or if he passes away, etc... That means a whole lot of small counties staying in touch with a lot of big ones (and vice versa) and lots of paperwork. Which means lots of mistakes.
No matter how much money someone collects in their SSA check they're still gonna want to get the most bang for their buck. It's why so money people move when they retire. That and they usually like to move to warmer weather.
It's gonna be tough to find a solution that simplifies SSA, removes the power from DC, and keeps people from freaking out over it. Any change to SSA is going to be met with hostility by those who currently benefit from the system or those who will soon benefit.
The absolute best thing to do, and I have no easy answer for this either, is to find a way to phase out the entire program.
Social Insurance
In social insurance, PAYGO refers to an unfunded system in which current contributors to the system pay the expenses for the current recipients. In a pure PAYGO system, no reserves are accumulated and all contributions are paid out in the same period. The opposite of a PAYGO system is a funded system, in which contributions are accumulated and paid out later (together with the interest on it) when eligibility requirements are met.
U.S. Social Security
An important example of such a PAYGO system in this second sense is Social Security in the U.S. In that system, contributions are paid by the currently employed population in the form of a payroll tax, also called the FICA tax, which stands for the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act", while recipients are mostly individuals of at least 62 years of age. Social Security is not a pure PAYGO system, because it accumulates excess revenue in so-called Trust Funds, officially known as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (OASDI).
And here is the problem, as I see it. The federal government has promised a certain amount of social security to retiring and about to retire individuals, based on their income. However, it is an unfunded system, so our contributions pay for the retirees.
If we do what is proposed with County Co-ops, The FICA payments will stop and county taxes will fund SS. In the common example you have provided, either the county where income was earned pays for the retiree or the county where he resides pays. Both situations are unfair, since neither county had a chance to save funds for retirement of the individual. It is a federal obligation that they promised.
So can we require the fed to pay without making FICA payments? That will wreck the deficit.
Phasing out the entire program would be useful.
Perhaps we need to exclude SS from our little plan and let the fed continue to collect taxes and pay retirees.
What a trap! What a bunch of crooks!
Sounds a lot like the dreaded public option. It sounds like a good idea and I am glad people are starting to talk about what to do with the exploding cost of these programs. I am skeptical because the plan sounds a little rough at the moment, but I feel like it is fundamentally a good idea.
The best way to do it is, cancel out all benefits, except for maybe SSD, for everyone under 35, people would no longer have to contribute but their pay outs will be lowered based on the time away from official retirement age.
We could also cut Medicare benefits and transfer the savings to shore up SS.
Subject all people who are receiving SS to an extra 401k/retirement account tax.
Allow opt outs for those who don't want it and they will not have to pay the tax.
Well, it isn't like the public option since the public option is a direct government program. Co-ops are semi private. There funding comes from public sources, but their operations are private.
How else can you guarantee universal coverage?
I have a few thoughts
1. I would rather see county cooperatives instead of single counties. My state has something like 140 counties and there is not a critical mass of people for these kinds of initiatives at the local level, unless you are in a metro area. Places like South Dakota would probably need a single entity running these programs for the state as a whole.
2. During a recession, Keynesian economics contain important policies to jumpstart economies and often counties cannot have a budget deficit, this would have to be changed.
3. Because of the duplication of infrastructure in administrative functions, I see a very real possibility of taxes going up.
5. Other than corruption caused by lobbying, I don't really see how this will change much since most of these programs, while funded by the Federal Government, are administered at the local level anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?