• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should We Redesign Payroll Taxes?

phattonez said:
Thanks for just completely ignoring the paper I sent you that explains exactly how these massive firms have brought the labor share down to historic lows. I'm not going to argue with you when you just totally ignore the evidence that I present.
Click to expand...

This exchange started with you declaring total opposition to monopoly power (in a post that referenced government-regulated natural monopolies), which then immediately stated some companies need to be broken up, I asked which, and you said Amazon.

Since then, you've basically just pivoted and gone on a tangent. The paper you sent did not explain "exactly how firms have brought the labor share down," it just correlates long-term firm growth to long-term decline in labor's share of GDP. Which is fine (obvious, even), but none of it supports the idea that large firms are monopolies that need to be broken up.
 

I am going to ignore your usual diatribe that any talk about raising upper-income taxes is "hatred of the rich" and meeting facts with BS and right-wing talking points.

I don't know what problem you think Lydon Johnson created but the problem he was trying to solve -- and did, was providing medical insurance for seniors (Medicare) because seniors weren't about to buy it in an affordable form on the private market, because seniors are poor risks to the insurance industry. He also solved lack of medical coverage for the poor (Medicaid).
 
Last edited:

You are always going to ignore logic and common sense never addressing the issues raised. You have shown no proof that higher taxes on the rich are going to accomplish anything positive for the economy. LBJ put SS and Medicare on budget and the money was spent. The account is now full of IOU's so where did the money go?

As usual the use of tax dollars is something you will never understand nor will you understand the purpose of the taxes created.
 

A lot of macroeconomists would disagree that the federal government needs to balance its budget, i.e. raise enough in taxes as it is committed to spending on those things (find me a prominent economist who advocates balanced federal budgets), and this perspective is typically associated with fiscal and social liberalism. So your liberal opinion here seems at direct odds with the virtual consensus of liberal macroeconomists.
 

And sacrificing the long term for the short term is foolish.
 

Then how do you go about increasing labor share?
 
Neomalthusian said:
So your liberal opinion here seems at direct odds with the virtual consensus of liberal macroeconomists.
Click to expand...

Context is key. Virtually all respected macroeconomists, whether they come from the left or the right, agree that you increase deficits during bad times and reduce them during good times.

You should know better than to make such a bull**** comment.
 

The post I was responding to indicated that the federal government's failure to raise as much tax revenue as it spends is a problem created by conservatives which requires a cure. That sounds to me like balanced budget talk. Liberal economists don't talk like that (Keynesianism notwithstanding).
 

You are correct, the government need not balance the budget and that is not what I was suggesting. What I am suggesting is that the deficit, as a p% I’d GDP, be kept lower than the increase in GDP. Currently, the deficit is over 5% of GDP — higher than GDP growth.
 

Again, context is key.

We should expect the deficit to fall during economic expansion. It is doing the opposite with a federal government entirely in the hands of conservatives. This is reality.

Keynesianism isn't a partisan platform.
 

Interesting as all this blame on Republicans, can you explain the following

Debt to GDP

Reagan 52%
Bush 72%
Obama 105%

Was Obama a Republican?

As for the deficit seems that the line items in the budget are being ignored to again place blame but only on Trump, wonder why? Do you know what interest expense is and what that contributes to the deficits? Now it is deficit as a percentage of GDP but not debt? Make up your mind as to what metric you want to address and use to attack Republicans?
 
Conservative said:
So where is the disconnect between what has been collected and the IOU's that now are in the account?
Click to expand...

Conservative said:
Interest payments aren't debt obligations? Really? And I don't know how the world works? There is nothing centrist in your point of view nor is their accuracy or reality
Click to expand...

Where did I say that interest payments aren't debt obligations? What I said was, most of the Trust Fund is interest. You can't spend interest payments on other things. It is an expense to the government. Interest is a bond that the government credits to the program that generates more interest. Unless they transfer the bond out of Social Security in exchange for something else, Congress can't spend interest payments. The government can't spend general fund subsidies. These are an expense to the government.

You go on and on about how the government squandered the money when most of the money that you are talking about is interest that comes from not squandering the money.
 

No. It is a frighteningly large segment of the population that believes in the legend of the great Trust Fund Robbery. And yes, you have correctly concluded why the legend is so problematic. This is an article that I published in MarketWatch.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fixing-social-security-starts-with-us-the-voters-2018-06-25

 

NO, most of the Trust fund is IOU's where the money was spent. You are probably contributing money monthly to SS like I did for 35 years, my employer did the same thing, where did that money go?

Interest comes on borrowing money not on your contributions. So what you are telling me is that over the entire history of SS and Medicare, all the contributions from the employee and the employer have been paid out in benefits and the leftover is interest due the trust fund? PROVE IT.

LBJ saw more money coming in than going out which is why the unified budget was created. You have yet to address that issue or where the Contributions going into the fund for SS and Medicare went!!

And oh, by the way, a loan is not stealing and that is what the SS Trust fund was used for and secured by IOU's with U.S. Backing. When those IOU's come due where does the money come from?
 
Conservative said:
NO, most of the Trust fund is IOU's where the money was spent. You are probably contributing money monthly to SS like I did for 35 years, my employer did the same thing, where did that money go?
Click to expand...

Again, your monthly contributions go to existing retirees. That is the definition of a pay-as-you-go model. Of the $1 that you contribute, maybe a nickel went to the trust fund. That earned interest. That interest was paid in the form of an IOU.


This is the data from the SSA on the old-age survivors program. The DI program has a similar report. The OASDI combine information is available as well.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a1.html

This is an article that explains the data.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2015/12/08/the-myth-of-the-missing-social-security-trust-fund/




At the time of LBJ, it was a pay-as-you-go system. Almost every penny simply went from workers to retirees. The unified budget has no impact on that movement. There is nothing to address because there was virtually nothing left over.

The loan from the Trust Fund is no different than the loan from a private pension. Where does the money come from to redeem those bonds? It is the same thing.
 

Wrong, every penny didn't go to retirees and if you looked at the line items in the budget you would know that but you haven't and still cannot get it through that head of yours that IOU's aren't solely for interest as there are many trillions of them. Where did the money go?? Gave you links after link and all I get from you is the definition of SS and how it is funded. That never was the issue, how it was used WAS. The SS fund is secured by the U.S. Govt. but has to be funded. Now one more time, where did the money go and don't give me that bs that it all went to retirees. PROVE IT



This is the data from the SSA on the old-age survivors program. The DI program has a similar report. The OASDI combine information is available as well.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a1.html

This is an article that explains the data.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2015/12/08/the-myth-of-the-missing-social-security-trust-fund/






At the time of LBJ, it was a pay-as-you-go system. Almost every penny simply went from workers to retirees. The unified budget has no impact on that movement. There is nothing to address because there was virtually nothing left over.

The loan from the Trust Fund is no different than the loan from a private pension. Where does the money come from to redeem those bonds? It is the same thing.[/QUOTE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…