GOP introduces plan to massively cut Social Security

[Renae]

No they didn't - Trump ran on promises to preserve SS and Medicare. He flip flopped on just about everything, but I never heard him EVER promise to cut expenditures in those popular programs. Why would he - his base is older?

That's nice.

 

[JasperL]

tax cuts don't need to be paid for.

government spending does.

LOL, revenue cuts require spending cuts just like increases in expenditures (it's math, and budgeting 101), unless you believe in the magic tax fairy that increases revenue when tax rates are lowered, so tax cuts pay for themselves.

I do have to admit this is one of the greatest accomplishments of 30 years of right wing propaganda that so many people believe you CAN cut taxes (e.g. by the $600 billion per YEAR Trump proposes) and "the doing of them will not cost anyone anything."

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL, revenue cuts require spending cuts just like increases in expenditures (it's math, and budgeting 101), unless you believe in the magic tax fairy that increases revenue when tax rates are lowered, so tax cuts pay for themselves.

I do have to admit this is one of the greatest accomplishments of 30 years of right wing propaganda that so many people believe you CAN cut taxes (e.g. by the $600 billion per YEAR Trump proposes) and "the doing of them will not cost anyone anything."

your logic is that all wealth belongs to the government first

 

[JasperL]

That's nice.

So you agree or not? He didn't run as a "conservative" on spending issues, and certainly not on entitlements.

 

[JasperL]

your logic is that all wealth belongs to the government first

No, my logic is math.

If Trump passes his $600 billion/year tax cuts (ignoring magic tax fairy aka Laffer Curve effects) then only two things can happen - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

If Trump passes an infrastructure spending plan that costs $600 billion per year - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

Notice the underlined clauses are identical. Point being if spending has to be "paid for" so do tax cuts.

 

[Renae]

No, my logic is math.

If Trump passes his $600 billion/year tax cuts (ignoring magic tax fairy aka Laffer Curve effects) then only two things can happen - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

If Trump passes an infrastructure spending plan that costs $600 billion per year - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

Notice the underlined clauses are identical. Point being if spending has to be "paid for" so do tax cuts.

Cut spending, that's a good thing.

 

[j-mac]

No, my logic is math.

If Trump passes his $600 billion/year tax cuts (ignoring magic tax fairy aka Laffer Curve effects) then only two things can happen - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

If Trump passes an infrastructure spending plan that costs $600 billion per year - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

Notice the underlined clauses are identical. Point being if spending has to be "paid for" so do tax cuts.

Only if you keep government at the same levels or growing....The idea is to stimulate revenue, while cutting the beast, and making it more efficient.

 

[JasperL]

Cut spending, that's a good thing.

I'm fine with that. I'm as fine with that as I am with the decision by a good friend and terrific doctor to give up his private practice, cut his income by more than half, to go work for the local agency that provides healthcare to the poor and uninsured. The drop in income meant his family had to give up a lot of nice things (i.e. they had to "pay" for that decision).

What I'm not fine with are right wing propagandists lying to the public by pretending we can cut taxes (an easy choice) without making the VERY hard choices about whose benefits will be cut, how deeply we will have to cut the military, which roads we can no longer build or maintain, etc.

 

[JasperL]

Only if you keep government at the same levels or growing....The idea is to stimulate revenue, while cutting the beast, and making it more efficient.

I guess - if Trump cuts taxes by $600 billion, either we borrow the shortfall, and/or we cut spending. It's possible the tax cuts increase economic activity, and therefore tax revenues increase, so instead of cutting spending/borrowing $600 billion per year, we only need to cut spending/borrow something like $500 billion per year....

But the bottom line is a government with low tax rates must spend a lot less than a government with higher tax rates. It's just math and reality - there is no free lunch, no tax fairy or tax Santa Clause, and lowering taxes means, always, spending cuts (or more borrowing).

 

[j-mac]

I guess - if Trump cuts taxes by $600 billion, either we borrow the shortfall, and/or we cut spending. It's possible the tax cuts increase economic activity, and therefore tax revenues increase, so instead of cutting spending/borrowing $600 billion per year, we only need to cut spending/borrow something like $500 billion per year....

But the bottom line is a government with low tax rates must spend a lot less than a government with higher tax rates. It's just math and reality - there is no free lunch, no tax fairy or tax Santa Clause, and lowering taxes means, always, spending cuts (or more borrowing).

Never said there was, but the Government doesn't "allow" me to keep the amount of my income it does...Let's be clear, they force me to pay what they take, and then waste it....I want more accountability....

 

[justabubba]

We all pay exactly the same rate up to the cap. For some reason, you are ignoring the PIA. Is it because acknowledging the PIA takes away your concern?

Nothing above the cap goes into the PIA formula for any of us; you, me, or Cam. None of us pays more than the maximum, and none of us receives more than the maximum. Everyone is treated exactly the same. I really don't understand why equal treatment bothers you.

i is NOT equal treatment
as i have shown, high income earners, such as cam, pay into the social security fund at a much diminished rate than lower income earners
equal treatment would obligate cam and other high earners to pay at the same rate for all earned income

 

[JasperL]

Never said there was, but the Government doesn't "allow" me to keep the amount of my income it does...Let's be clear, they force me to pay what they take, and then waste it....I want more accountability....

Like I said to the another person just above, I have no problem with conservatives wanting lower taxes AND lower spending. It's a intellectually honest and defensible position in every way!

I was just pointing out that the statement that "tax cuts don't need to be paid for. government spending does." is complete nonsense and for all meaningful purposes a lie, a falsehood.

We'll all have different spending and tax preferences, and as long as we're honest about them, that low taxes means cuts in spending, and vice versa, we can have vigorous and productive debates. If one side lies and says we can cut taxes without spending cuts OR the other claims we can increase spending without tax increases, it's impossible to have an honest public debate.

 

[Renae]

I'm fine with that. I'm as fine with that as I am with the decision by a good friend and terrific doctor to give up his private practice, cut his income by more than half, to go work for the local agency that provides healthcare to the poor and uninsured. The drop in income meant his family had to give up a lot of nice things (i.e. they had to "pay" for that decision).

What I'm not fine with are right wing propagandists lying to the public by pretending we can cut taxes (an easy choice) without making the VERY hard choices about whose benefits will be cut, how deeply we will have to cut the military, which roads we can no longer build or maintain, etc.

Ya know when you cut taxes that increases economic activity. The problem you and others have is, you are incapable of accepting that economic activity without government direction is good

 

[JasperL]

Ya know when you cut taxes that increases economic activity.

Of course. Me: "if Trump cuts taxes by $600 billion, either we borrow the shortfall, and/or we cut spending. It's possible the tax cuts increase economic activity, and therefore tax revenues increase, so instead of cutting spending/borrowing $600 billion per year, we only need to cut spending/borrow something like $500 billion per year...."

The reason I didn't say "the tax cuts WILL increase economic activity" is because economists, such as noted conservatives like Milton Friedman who is in favor of tax cuts at any time for any reason, believe that BORROWED tax cuts actually don't increase economic activity in the long run because of crowding out and interest rate effects, and if borrowed, a tax cut of $1 could ultimately cost up to $1.10 in lost revenue.

And there is simply no evidence at modern rates that the first order effect a tax cut, a drop in revenue, can be offset or even close to offset by the second order effect of increases in economic activity and the additional tax revenue (at lower rates) that might produce.

The problem you and others have is, you are incapable of accepting that economic activity without government direction is good

I'm not only CAPABLE of accepting that, I DO accept it completely. No need to resort to ad hominems - you can simply address my very straightforward comments.

 

[Visbek]

Only if you keep government at the same levels or growing....The idea is to stimulate revenue, while cutting the beast, and making it more efficient.

"To dream the impossible dream...."

The reality is that Americans are happy to cut spending -- but only in the abstract, and mostly because they have no idea how the spending is allocated. When you ask "do you want the federal government to spend less?" the answer is almost always an overwhelming yes. When about specifics, most people don't want cuts at all. An oldie but a goodie....

Meanwhile, the reality is that nearly 80% of spending goes to programs that most Americans absolutely do not want cut: Social Security, Medicare, military spending, interest on the debt, and the VA. We could cut literally everything else the federal government does, and still barely break even.

The only thing Americans really want to cut -- foreign aid -- is less than 1% of the federal budget.

As to "efficiency..." Social Security, perhaps the single most expensive program, is incredibly efficient; less than 1% of the program is spent on administration. Medicare is also fairly well run, though of course we could always use more fraud protections.

The DoD is, well... the DoD. Good luck cleaning out THAT stable. Especially when Trump is proclaiming he will increase military spending.

Interest on debt is clearly very efficient.

Despite a lot of bad press lately, the VA overall is highly efficient. If anything, the problem is that the VA is overwhelmed with the increased needs, due to a growing population of elderly veterans, and with soldiers recovering from two major and long wars. Cutting funds to the VA is not going to make it more efficient.

Again, most of the rest of the programs are small potatoes, and administration after administration has tried to make the various bureaucracies more efficient. There isn't anywhere near as much fat as people assume.

 

[Visbek]

Never said there was, but the Government doesn't "allow" me to keep the amount of my income it does...Let's be clear, they force me to pay what they take, and then waste it....I want more accountability....

Oh, really?

Have you actually sorted through the annual reports from the various agencies, to see what is wasteful?

You do know that, with the exception of various classified programs, every federal agency is required to report pretty much every penny it spends?

 

[justabubba]

No, my logic is math.

If Trump passes his $600 billion/year tax cuts (ignoring magic tax fairy aka Laffer Curve effects) then only two things can happen - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

If Trump passes an infrastructure spending plan that costs $600 billion per year - government cuts spending by $600 billion and/or we borrow $600 billion.

Notice the underlined clauses are identical. Point being if spending has to be "paid for" so do tax cuts.

simpson-bowles told us this
seemingly, almost everyone acknowledged the reality that more spending required more tax collection just as reduced spending was essential to accommodate tax cutting
and then many immediately resumed ignoring that fiscal/logical reality because it does not fit with their political belief system
who the hell put so much stupid in the water?!?!

 

[Visbek]

Ya know when you cut taxes that increases economic activity.

That depends entirely on the nature and structure of the tax cut.

For example, in another oldie but goodie: We know that people with low incomes spend almost everything they earn, while people with high incomes save about half:

Thus, tax cuts for low earners will generate quite a bit of economic activity, as it will all get spent very quickly. In contrast, a tax break for the top 5% or top 1% will do almost nothing for the economy, as it will almost certainly go into savings.

Or: As part of the 2009 stimulus, Obama signed in a small cut to payroll taxes -- small enough that people didn't notice it. However, they did spend it, and it was probably more effective at getting people to spend than the Bush 43 tax rebate. The concept was similar ("send people money, get them to spend it") but when it arrived in a single check, people were more likely to save part of it, or pay down debts, than to generate new economic activity.

And of course, we also have to acknowledge that given our current tax rates, cutting taxes will NOT produce so much additional growth that it will offset the lost revenues. That is screamingly obvious, over and over again, most recently in Kansas and Louisiana.

The problem you and others have is, you are incapable of accepting that economic activity without government direction is good

lol

1) No one wants a command economy anymore.

2) In case you missed it, the Republicans now want to command American companies to manufacture in the US -- or else. It's hard to see how that is not an example of "economic activity without government direction."

 

[Renae]

That depends entirely on the nature and structure of the tax cut.

For example, in another oldie but goodie: We know that people with low incomes spend almost everything they earn, while people with high incomes save about half:

Thus, tax cuts for low earners will generate quite a bit of economic activity, as it will all get spent very quickly. In contrast, a tax break for the top 5% or top 1% will do almost nothing for the economy, as it will almost certainly go into savings.

Or: As part of the 2009 stimulus, Obama signed in a small cut to payroll taxes -- small enough that people didn't notice it. However, they did spend it, and it was probably more effective at getting people to spend than the Bush 43 tax rebate. The concept was similar ("send people money, get them to spend it") but when it arrived in a single check, people were more likely to save part of it, or pay down debts, than to generate new economic activity.

And of course, we also have to acknowledge that given our current tax rates, cutting taxes will NOT produce so much additional growth that it will offset the lost revenues. That is screamingly obvious, over and over again, most recently in Kansas and Louisiana.



lol

1) No one wants a command economy anymore.

2) In case you missed it, the Republicans now want to command American companies to manufacture in the US -- or else. It's hard to see how that is not an example of "economic activity without government direction."

Savings aren't dead money that sit under a mattress, your logic has failed.

 

[Renae]

1) No one wants a command economy anymore.

Funny, didn't the Dem's nearly pick a socialist over Hillary? Yeah, they did.

 

[JasperL]

Savings aren't dead money that sit under a mattress, your logic has failed.

No one argues that.

 

[natsb]

Not if you put in means testing....

Means testing already exist in the PIA formula, and it doesn't help much. Getting rid of PIA turns SS into just another welfare program. As such, it becomes much easier to dismantle.

 

[natsb]

Oh, and I just have to say this....I think of those that know me in here by no rational thinking what so ever would ever say that I am displaying any sort of class envy, or jealousy of those who have made more than me in their lifetimes....In fact in the past I have railed against that sort of thinking from the liberal posters in here, to OWS, and all of the communist lite blather they put out there....But, at 54 years old, and looking at retirement in a dozen years or so, I think that if the people are going to demand that the Government take care of them in their old age, then by God, it becomes a tax, and at that point I have a right to demand equal taxation.

I am not promoting or dispelling your philosophy (although, I agree with it). I am simply pointing out the hard cold math. Everyone already pays the same tax. Everyone is already subject to the same maximum PIA. Anything above the cap is simply not income in the eyes of the SS system. The math just doesn't care about words like fair or feelings. Those are better suited for welfare systems.

 

[natsb]

i is NOT equal treatment
as i have shown, high income earners, such as cam, pay into the social security fund at a much diminished rate than lower income earners
equal treatment would obligate cam and other high earners to pay at the same rate for all earned income

Everyone pays the same tax rate. Everyone has the same cap. Everyone has the same maximum PIA. You can't get much more equal than that.

Again, you keep ignoring PIA. Why is that? Why do you refuse to acknowledge the maximum payout?

 

[Mithros]

Take a look at the link education is helpful so you know what you are talking about... cheers
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax - MarketWatch
Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

Education is extremely helpful. It helps you to distinguish between words like Income and Payroll. Loosely speaking payroll taxes pay for entitlements, income taxes pay for discretionary funding.

Social Security is paid for via the payroll tax. Reagan raised the payroll tax in the 80's to create a massive surplus that could be used to fund the baby boomers today. That surplus was loaned to the discretionary side of the budget to the tune of almost 3 Trillion dollars.

This has been great for lawmakers. They can lower income taxes and spend more money, and use the Social Security trust fund to make up the difference. But like all good things it must come to and end. Social Security isn't set up to be an investment, its a pay as you go system. The 3 trillion dollar surplus was designed to take care of the baby boomers but we've already spent it and now we don't want to pay it back. So yes, long term there need to be changes.

But don't start this BS about people not paying taxes.