• 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!

Social Security Fix

Your Identity and For/Against this SS Reform model


  • Total voters
    72

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,464
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, this should address on what happens to people who want SS reform(LOL)

Remember Chris Christie?

I rest my case

 

Luther

Another California Refugee
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
20,649
Reaction score
2,464
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Social Security is not broken. Also SS is not a retirement plan, it's insurance against poverty either in old age or if you become incapacitated when your young enough to work. I can't confirm this, but I've heard as much as 30% of current recipient are young enough to work, but can't.

Social Security is not broken

(LOL)

Also SS is not a retirement plan, it's insurance against poverty either in old age

Anyone else see some hypocrisy there?
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,947
Reaction score
33,853
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I would say, off the top of my head:

1. that money has already been taxed, and
2. because the more you tax something, the more you discourage it. Some activities are more vulnerable to this than others. Labor (especially low and middle income) is very inelastic - they need that money. Capitol? Capitol can move pretty quickly and fairly easily. Cut that golden goose up too much, and you'll find the golden egg you're pulling out is your last.

1 Money that is earned as capital gains has not been taxed already. That's false.

2 Good point. Taxing something does discourage it.Therefore, if we want to discourage people from earning money, as opposed to depending on the government for necessities, we should tax incomes at a higher rate than we do capital gains.

Was that your point?
 

aociswundumho

Capitalist Pig
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
12,831
Reaction score
6,076
Location
Bridgeport, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Also SS is not a retirement plan, it's insurance against poverty either in old age

This is completely false. Social Security is a welfare program funded by a payroll tax. End of story.

With an insurance policy you have a contract stipulating how much you will pay in and how much you'll get out of it based on certain contingencies.

With Social Security there is no contract, and thus no guarantee. The amount you pay in or your eligibility to collect benefits can be changed by congress at any time. The amount of those benefits can also be changed at any time by congress. But don't take my word for it, the issue was settled 60 years ago by the US supreme court in Fleming v. Nestor:

wiki said:
A 1954 amendment to the Social Security Act stripped old-age benefits from contributors who were deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The following year Ephram Nestor, an alien from Bulgaria who had paid into Social Security for 19 years, began drawing benefits. Nestor was subsequently deported for involvement in the Communist Party, and his benefits were terminated. He sued the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on the basis that the amendment had deprived him of a property interest in Social Security without due process and was therefore invalid.

Opinion of the Court

The Court ruled that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.

Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.

Social Security is not insurance, it's welfare.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1 Money that is earned as capital gains has not been taxed already. That's false.

Trump got rid of corporate taxes? That's amazing - I would have thought it would have been a bigger news story...

... Okay :). That was a little goofy, but, the point remains. I would be MUCH more open to a compromise position that ACTUALLY taxed that income equally... Which would mean either getting rid of corporate taxes and taxing capital gains as regular income (my preferred option between the two*) or making sure that the combined rate between them did not exceed that of income rates (which strikes me as needlessly complicated).


* Worth noting; this would strongly incentivize reinvestment of profits within the company, reorienting our economy at least somewhat to long term ( v our current obsession with quarterly) growth.

2 Good point. Taxing something does discourage it.Therefore, if we want to discourage people from earning money, as opposed to depending on the government for necessities, we should tax incomes at a higher rate than we do capital gains.

Was that your point?

..... I think you are drawing a connection I did not. Investment doesn't produce dependence on Government benefits; low or lack of income generally does. So, while I would agree wholeheartedly that high tax rates on income can reduce income (potentially increasing dependence), I don't think that is likely to impact investment as much.

The point I was making is that different activities have differing levels of responsiveness to marginal changes. So the relative loss of investment activity that works come from (say) an increase in capital gains rates by 10% would be greater than the relative loss of income activity you would see from a 10% increase on work-based income, especially at the low-middle and middle income levels. The very low and high incomes may be slightly more elastic, but, probably still a good bit less so than capital.
 

danielpalos

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29,135
Reaction score
1,519
Location
US, California - federalist
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is completely false. Social Security is a welfare program funded by a payroll tax. End of story.

With an insurance policy you have a contract stipulating how much you will pay in and how much you'll get out of it based on certain contingencies.

With Social Security there is no contract, and thus no guarantee. The amount you pay in or your eligibility to collect benefits can be changed by congress at any time. The amount of those benefits can also be changed at any time by congress. But don't take my word for it, the issue was settled 60 years ago by the US supreme court in Fleming v. Nestor:



Social Security is not insurance, it's welfare.

We have a Commerce Clause and our welfare clause is General enough to cover this contingency.

Public policy can conform to capitalism to generate revenue to defray the cost of Government. Promoting the general welfare should require public policies with a multiplier of Two or more.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,947
Reaction score
33,853
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump got rid of corporate taxes? That's amazing - I would have thought it would have been a bigger news story...

... Okay :). That was a little goofy, but, the point remains. I would be MUCH more open to a compromise position that ACTUALLY taxed that income equally... Which would mean either getting rid of corporate taxes and taxing capital gains as regular income (my preferred option between the two*) or making sure that the combined rate between them did not exceed that of income rates (which strikes me as needlessly complicated).


* Worth noting; this would strongly incentivize reinvestment of profits within the company, reorienting our economy at least somewhat to long term ( v our current obsession with quarterly) growth.



..... I think you are drawing a connection I did not. Investment doesn't produce dependence on Government benefits; low or lack of income generally does. So, while I would agree wholeheartedly that high tax rates on income can reduce income (potentially increasing dependence), I don't think that is likely to impact investment as much.

The point I was making is that different activities have differing levels of responsiveness to marginal changes. So the relative loss of investment activity that works come from (say) an increase in capital gains rates by 10% would be greater than the relative loss of income activity you would see from a 10% increase on work-based income, especially at the low-middle and middle income levels. The very low and high incomes may be slightly more elastic, but, probably still a good bit less so than capital.

Taxing some activity discourages that activity. Taxing income discourages people from working harder for more income. That's where we agree, I think.

We also agree on corporate taxes. A well run corporation will spend most of its income on salaries of employees, on capital improvements, and on paying dividends to share holders. There should be little left to tax anyway. So, sure, let's eliminate taxes on corporations and instead tax those dividends, salaries, and increases in value at the same rate. Income is income, regardless of source.

And, if corporations aren't paying taxes, they aren't people, and therefore have no right to exercise free "speech" by contributing to political campaigns. The people who are shareholders in those corporations are people, are paying taxes, and have a right to contribute all the "speech" dollars they want.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
28,734
Reaction score
19,199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's not factually correct, it's a myth.

It is not true that congress has removed any money from Social Security. What HAS happened is that SS is required to invest it's trust fund into Treasury bonds, which is the safest investment in the world, and this has been the case ever since SS was started. the US treasury has never defaulted on it's bond obligations, and never will and never will have to. The government issues money and also has the power to tax and issue bonds, so there is no reason that a country that issues it's own money would ever need to default on an obligation which is denominated in it's own currency.

The old canard about social security being "robbed" is basically an ignorance test. What the hell else would they rather the government do with social security? In the early 2000s, some conservative think tanks were arguing for social security to be invested in mortgage securities rather than treasuries. Can you imagine if we had done that prior to 2008?
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
28,734
Reaction score
19,199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would say, off the top of my head:

1. that money has already been taxed, and
2. because the more you tax something, the more you discourage it. Some activities are more vulnerable to this than others. Labor (especially low and middle income) is very inelastic - they need that money. Capitol? Capitol can move pretty quickly and fairly easily. Cut that golden goose up too much, and you'll find the golden egg you're pulling out is your last.

Capital gains and corporate taxes were much higher in the 90s than they are now and we certainly were not hurting for business or market investments then. My point is that you can get into trouble with blanket rules on things. Sure, if corporate and capital gains taxes were high enough, they would hurt business and market investments, but the key there is "high enough". With capital gains taxes in particular, there is no evidence that a return to 90s era rates would hurt investment, indeed we had irrational exuberance in regards to investment back then.

If you tax me at 60%, I probably won't work as hard. But just because my taxes are 25% and you cut them to 20% does not mean I work harder.

That said, corporate taxes were in need of reform (and still in need of reform), to get the statutory rates (which were high) closer to the effective rates (which were not that high), because such a difference between statutory and effective rates creates distortions.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Capital gains and corporate taxes were much higher in the 90s than they are now and we certainly were not hurting for business or market investments then. My point is that you can get into trouble with blanket rules on things. Sure, if corporate and capital gains taxes were high enough, they would hurt business and market investments, but the key there is "high enough". With capital gains taxes in particular, there is no evidence that a return to 90s era rates would hurt investment, indeed we had irrational exuberance in regards to investment back then.

If you tax me at 60%, I probably won't work as hard. But just because my taxes are 25% and you cut them to 20% does not mean I work harder.

I think you are describing a cumulative marginal effect as though it were a binary one. There isn't a percentage where "okay, now we will see less of the activity than we would otherwise", there is only a sliding scale of increasingly less of the activity relative to what would otherwise occur, with a tipping point at which we see even less revenue from it due to the increased amount of reduced occurrence. There is no "the key is high enough", unless you are speaking to revenue and that tipping point - if you are simply discussing reduced activity, that is already occurring.



That said, corporate taxes were in need of reform (and still in need of reform), to get the statutory rates (which were high) closer to the effective rates (which were not that high), because such a difference between statutory and effective rates creates distortions.

Solid concur, which is why I would propose getting rid of them alltogether and simply taxing capital gains as an income, in order to A) produce equal treatment between the incomes and B) reduce unnecessary complexity and gaming of the system.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Taxing some activity discourages that activity. Taxing income discourages people from working harder for more income. That's where we agree, I think.

We also agree on corporate taxes. A well run corporation will spend most of its income on salaries of employees, on capital improvements, and on paying dividends to share holders. There should be little left to tax anyway. So, sure, let's eliminate taxes on corporations and instead tax those dividends, salaries, and increases in value at the same rate. Income is income, regardless of source.

Dividends, salaries, and increases in value when realized by sale, and I can agree to this compromise. Taxing mere increases in value would cause this to cease to be an income tax, and become a national property tax instead which, IIRC, would be unConstitutional.

And, if corporations aren't paying taxes, they aren't people, and therefore have no right to exercise free "speech" by contributing to political campaigns. The people who are shareholders in those corporations are people, are paying taxes, and have a right to contribute all the "speech" dollars they want.

Corporations are groups of people acting together, so, what you are saying here is "People lose their freedom of speech when they act in groups". So, for example, Unions wouldn't have the right to argue for better treatment of workers, Greenpeace wouldn't have the right to advocate for protecting the environment, the Democrat Party wouldn't have the right to advocate for its platform, and Random House wouldn't have the right to publish books if the government didn't like it.

So... I'm going to have to hard disagree with you, there. Citizens do not lose their rights merely because they act in concert with each other.


It is also worth noting, of course, that if you take away legal personhood from a corporation, that means they can no longer be sued.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The old canard about social security being "robbed" is basically an ignorance test. What the hell else would they rather the government do with social security?

Well, I did start this whole thread on one particular idea.... [emoji14]
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
28,734
Reaction score
19,199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think you are describing a cumulative marginal effect as though it were a binary one. There isn't a percentage where "okay, now we will see less of the activity than we would otherwise", there is only a sliding scale of increasingly less of the activity relative to what would otherwise occur, with a tipping point at which we see even less revenue from it due to the increased amount of reduced occurrence. There is no "the key is high enough", unless you are speaking to revenue and that tipping point - if you are simply discussing reduced activity, that is already occurring.
.

The amount of business investment and market investment is pretty inelastic relative to tax rates until they hit such a level that those rates are so confiscatory that such investments are no longer worthwhile. For example, whether a company invests in a new datacenter or not is dictated by their need to do so based upon business requirements. Cutting their taxes won't result in them building out a bigger datacenter than they would have otherwise unless taxes were so high that they hindered the company's ability to do so.

The biggest problem we have in this country in the last 25 years or so has not been tax rates, whether they were high or low, but rather all the rent seeking behavior at all levels of our business culture. A typical engineering or IT division of a company these days will have far more consultants, product managers, product management managers, marketing people and so on than they will have engineers or software engineers. It's why productivity growth has been so anemic for the last 25 years. Much of our private sector is so full of rent seeking behavior that it runs more like a pyramid scheme than anything else. That is a topic for another thread though.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
28,734
Reaction score
19,199
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well, I did start this whole thread on one particular idea.... [emoji14]

I think the biggest problems with diverting Social Security contributions into private investment accounts is:

1. We would bail people out for bad choices anyway.

2. The stock market is already chronically overvalued. We have a glut of stock market investment as it is.
 

distraff

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
839
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Here is my proposal:

Allow workers to opt into a partially privatized system, where of their 7.65% FICA expenditures, 5% goes into a private TSP-style account; and the Employers match follow the same. the remaining 2.65% (or, when you count the match, 5.3%) will go straight into SS, but it will be revenue for which SS will never see a liability. the cost for opting out is that part of your pay continues to go to pay for others, but the upside is that you get a combined total of 10% of your annual income going into a retirement account that belongs to you, and grows tax-free. Social Securities' revenues will instantly drop, but nowhere near as severely as their liabilities. To ensure solvency in the adjustment period (and to make it politically palatable); lift the cap. We can lift the cap on only the worker (and not the employer) if we want to encourage job-creation; or lift it on both if we need the revenue to ensure solvency, or if that's the only way to get the thing passed; here is room for compromise wiggling. Higher paid workers will see more of their money leave in the form of taxes, but those making less than $604,000 will get back even more in the form of ownership of personalized accounts (assuming the employer cap isn't lifted, and that's not figuring for the added benefit of those accounts growing tax-free), and so they will be willing to make the trade. Perhaps another compromise point would be to raise the cap to $604K. Poorer workers can either spend their lifetime building far more wealth than they ever would have seen under Social Security if they are younger, or keep the guaranteed program benefits if they are older.

ta-da! the American people and the Government are left better off.

how much better off?

welllll, let's do a quick example:

Joe graduates High School and goes to work, making 25,000 a year. Not anyone's idea of incredible pay, but there you are. Joe gets' a 2% raise every year to account for his increasing talent, experience, etc. The 10% of his income goes into a mix of funds that matches the S&P 500 Combined Annualized Growth average since 1982: 7.98% (after you account for inflation). If Joe retires nice and early at 62; his retirement fund will be worth $1,030,110, and if placed into an annuity / conservative account that generates a 5% annual return, his monthly benefit will be $4,292. That would be slightly less than his last monthly paycheck of $4,979; but still quite livable. If Joe works until he's 65, his monthly benefit will climb above his monthly income to $5,473; and if he decides (as most of us probably will) to delay retirement to 68, he's looking at a monthly retirement check of $6,966.

This all sounds nice but there is a huge problem. What about the existing social security retirees? You can't just eliminate their benefits when they have been paying into social security for decades. So we still need the full social security tax to pay existing retirees. And what about the people over the age of 50, who are getting close to getting social security? They have been paying into the system for decades, and now should their benefits be eliminated? So young workers will still have to pay social security for the older workers today. And now since, the younger workers are still paying social security, then it wouldn't be fair to eliminate their social security benefits. So to introduce a private retirement system, people will have to pay the existing social security tax for existing retirees, and the new retirement tax/fee for future ones, which is double the tax.

Here is how we replace social security with a private system. First, we don't raise the social security tax for any reason, and will have to trim benefits to keep the program afloat. Next, we increase the social security benefits a tiny bit below inflation, so that in real dollars it will decline very gradually.

At the same time, we increase employer 401K matching requirements. This will encourage more savings by employees and require that employers do their part. This is their own money anyway, and they should already be saving more. If the social security benefits are reduced enough relative to inflation, eventually we are going to have a big surplus in the social security budget. We can use this surplus to plop money into 401K or IRAs.

I'm fine with eliminating the cap on the social security tax and using those revenues to dump money into these retirement accounts. However, I would keep the cap for the employer share, and eliminate the employer social security tax share for smaller companies. I'd also have employer 401K go directly into employee IRAs so we don't have have to keep track of a half dozen 401Ks from past employers. We should also move to completely eliminate pensions from the public sector. We could also consider measures to encourage children and family members to care for elderly parents and grandparents.
 
Last edited:

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,947
Reaction score
33,853
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1 Dividends, salaries, and increases in value when realized by sale, and I can agree to this compromise. Taxing mere increases in value would cause this to cease to be an income tax, and become a national property tax instead which, IIRC, would be unConstitutional.



2 Corporations are groups of people acting together, so, what you are saying here is "People lose their freedom of speech when they act in groups". So, for example, Unions wouldn't have the right to argue for better treatment of workers, Greenpeace wouldn't have the right to advocate for protecting the environment, the Democrat Party wouldn't have the right to advocate for its platform, and Random House wouldn't have the right to publish books if the government didn't like it.

So... I'm going to have to hard disagree with you, there. Citizens do not lose their rights merely because they act in concert with each other.


3 It is also worth noting, of course, that if you take away legal personhood from a corporation, that means they can no longer be sued.



1 Of course. You don't pay capital gains taxes until the property is sold and the gains are realized.

2 If the people as a group don't pay taxes, then they don't have a right to engage in politics It's that simple. The individuals who own the corporation still have the right of free speech like anyone else, of course.

Plus, the corporation has the right to promote their products. That's free speech. They make commercials and broadcast them, that's OK. But political opinions? No, not unless they pay taxes and support the government. They have no dog in the hunt.

3. Oh, I think a group of people can be sued. You don't have to sue an individual necessarily.
 

charliebrown

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
333
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What does a country full of old people do to solve ther SSI problems, they go bankrupt or figure out a way to reduce the old population.

Lets fix SSI and Medicare by promoting Euthanasia. we are spending entirely to much on healthcare the last year of our lives. We as a society need to understand that our innate greed for life is draining resources from our society in general. Most other nations accept death so much better than the US. We spend amazing amounts of money always trying to retain that youthful appearance. Let's welcome odl age, let's cherish it and let's accept the end of our lives more gracefully than being bedridden for the last year of our lives.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This all sounds nice but there is a huge problem. What about the existing social security retirees? You can't just eliminate their benefits when they have been paying into social security for decades.

I didn't. I flattened benefits by slowing growth for the top 50%, and means-testing the top 1%, which reduced the cost of the problem, left some of the current FICA taxes going into fund benefits. I also went through and showed how this would expand the debt, but then pay it off. Post 373 has the full cost projections. You will note that, over the long term, this system starts running a major surplus for the government, even after the additional debt accrued is paid off.

And what about the people over the age of 50, who are getting close to getting social security?

They will retain their guaranteed benefit - a portion of which will be paid by their (much smaller) personal accounts and a portion of which will be paid by the state. Over time, the portion paid by the state will shrink as personal accounts pick up ever-more of the burden. Post 373 will also show you the excel sheets where I went through and figured out how this would transition, though it's a couple of years old by now.

since, the younger workers are still paying social security, then it wouldn't be fair to eliminate their social security benefits

Younger workers are going to be much better off than their parents in this system, but, what they would have earned from the Social Security formula will remain their floor due to the guaranteed benefit amount.

So to introduce a private retirement system, people will have to pay the existing social security tax for existing retirees, and the new retirement tax/fee for future ones, which is double the tax.

No.

Here is how we replace social security with a private system. First, we don't raise the social security tax for any reason, and will have to trim benefits to keep the program afloat.

We will have to trim it significantly, and this will harm current retirees and workers in their 50's, both groups you said you wanted to protect.

Next, we increase the social security benefits a tiny bit below inflation, so that in real dollars it will decline very gradually.

This will also hurt retirees and workers in their 50s, whom you said you wanted to protect.

At the same time, we increase employer 401K matching requirements. This will encourage more savings by employees and require that employers do their part.

While functionally this is similar to what I'm proposing, this will not "require that employers do their part", unless by "their part" you mean "take on additional administrative tasks". If I pay $10,000 for a position and the government mandates I put 5% of salary into a 401(K), I'm just going to pay the guy $9,500 cash and $500 in his 401(k). "Employer Provided Benefits" generally come out of employee compensation.

I'd also have employer 401K go directly into employee IRAs so we don't have have to keep track of a half dozen 401Ks from past employers.

I think this would be an excellent innovation, so long as the cap on how much you can put into an IRA is bumped up to 25,500 (current max of a 401(K) being 19,500 and IRA being $6,000, with appropriate catch-up provisions for older workers)

We should also move to completely eliminate pensions from the public sector.

I'm not against that if it's done wisely and well, but it's a similar problem to the above. I suppose your lead for that is "cut benefits starting with current retirees", as you did with inflation above?

We could also consider measures to encourage children and family members to care for elderly parents and grandparents.

wholeheartedly concur.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
1 Of course. You don't pay capital gains taxes until the property is sold and the gains are realized.

:thumbs:

2 If the people as a group don't pay taxes, then they don't have a right to engage in politics It's that simple.

Firstly, your assumption is wrong - if these people are paying capital gains taxes on the money they make with their business, then they as a group are absolutely paying taxes.

Secondly, I find this notion fascinating. So non-profit corporations who don't pay taxes because they are non-profit corporations shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech. You wish to get rid of (for example) newspapers who editorialize, magazines with editorials, environmental groups who advocate for a better environment and, in fact, all political advocacy groups, effectively most venues by which U.S. citizens actually exercise their first amendment rights to band together and petition the government....

...and you think this will be increasing our freedom?

no thanks. I'd rather not live in a country where politicians get to ban books, movies, magazines, or newspapers they find inconvenient.

The individuals who own the corporation still have the right of free speech like anyone else, of course.

Naturally. They are simply barred from effective means of exercising it. Sort of like having the right to vote as a black person in the south during Jim Crow.

Plus, the corporation has the right to promote their products. That's free speech. They make commercials and broadcast them, that's OK. But political opinions? No, not unless they pay taxes and support the government. They have no dog in the hunt.

1. Corporations being an entity made up of people who are paying taxes, this assumption is incorrect. That was at the heart of my earlier point to you that profits from investments are taxed twice.

2. Please point to the portion of the Constitution or any documentation demonstrating the Founders' intent that one's inalienable rights depended for their existence on having a positive net tax rate to the federal government. Prior to the individual federal income tax, did no individual in this country have rights? When it was imposed at first only on the rich - did only they have rights, and everyone else did not?

3. Oh, I think a group of people can be sued. You don't have to sue an individual necessarily.

No, you actually need someone to sue.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
72,135
Reaction score
37,580
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The amount of business investment and market investment is pretty inelastic relative to tax rates until they hit such a level that those rates are so confiscatory that such investments are no longer worthwhile. For example, whether a company invests in a new datacenter or not is dictated by their need to do so based upon business requirements. Cutting their taxes won't result in them building out a bigger datacenter than they would have otherwise unless taxes were so high that they hindered the company's ability to do so.

The biggest problem we have in this country in the last 25 years or so has not been tax rates, whether they were high or low, but rather all the rent seeking behavior at all levels of our business culture. A typical engineering or IT division of a company these days will have far more consultants, product managers, product management managers, marketing people and so on than they will have engineers or software engineers. It's why productivity growth has been so anemic for the last 25 years. Much of our private sector is so full of rent seeking behavior that it runs more like a pyramid scheme than anything else. That is a topic for another thread though.

Again, I think you are describing marginal shifts that accumulate over time in a binary manner. I concur with you that the biggest hindrance right now is probably the complexity government intervenetion (of which rent-seeking is a major part) rather than raw marginal tax rates. That, however, does not mean that the dynamic I described earlier does not exist, any more than my being fat means I also don't have a pulled shoulder tendon. The first is a bigger problem than the second, which doesn't mean my shoulder doesn't hurt.
 

rickc

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Messages
8,073
Reaction score
4,279
Wall Street is a dangerous place for.the little guy. But for the insiders they can blow it up and then since they are too big to fail we bail them out. Its the little guy that gets hurt. All that BS about everyone owns stock. Well 80% of the stock in America is owned by the top 10%. Wall street will figure out a way to steal all that retirement money just.like the corporations raided the pension plans.

Social security fix

Remove the salary cap on imcome subject to the social security tax

Make.all income, earned and unearned, subject to the social security tax

If that doesn't do it.then raise the tax rate

Social security benefits need to be raised not cut

The retirement age should be 65. Not many people who actually do physical work can continue in their trade much after that. Not many 70 year old concrete finishers, iron workers or other labor intensive workers out there.
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,947
Reaction score
33,853
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:thumbs:



Firstly, your assumption is wrong - if these people are paying capital gains taxes on the money they make with their business, then they as a group are absolutely paying taxes.

Secondly, I find this notion fascinating. So non-profit corporations who don't pay taxes because they are non-profit corporations shouldn't be allowed to exercise freedom of speech. You wish to get rid of (for example) newspapers who editorialize, magazines with editorials, environmental groups who advocate for a better environment and, in fact, all political advocacy groups, effectively most venues by which U.S. citizens actually exercise their first amendment rights to band together and petition the government....

...and you think this will be increasing our freedom?

no thanks. I'd rather not live in a country where politicians get to ban books, movies, magazines, or newspapers they find inconvenient.



Naturally. They are simply barred from effective means of exercising it. Sort of like having the right to vote as a black person in the south during Jim Crow.



1. Corporations being an entity made up of people who are paying taxes, this assumption is incorrect. That was at the heart of my earlier point to you that profits from investments are taxed twice.

2. Please point to the portion of the Constitution or any documentation demonstrating the Founders' intent that one's inalienable rights depended for their existence on having a positive net tax rate to the federal government. Prior to the individual federal income tax, did no individual in this country have rights? When it was imposed at first only on the rich - did only they have rights, and everyone else did not?



No, you actually need someone to sue.

What's at issue is the personhood of corporations and the definition of "speech." If corporations are "people too," then it follows that they pay taxes just like anyone else, and that they can contribute "speech" in the form of money, to political causes.

If the corporation "people" aren't paying taxes, then they shouldn't be able to use "speech," which really means dollars, to influence politics.

The real people, whether they are owners of corporations or not, are free to give all of the "speech" money to political causes that they want.

The speech you see in newspapers and magazines is the other sort, the kind made up of words rather than dollars.

As it stands right now, corporations don't pay taxes on the money they pay out in dividends to shareholders. That is not net profit that is taxed. They don't pay taxes on capital improvements, as that is part of their expenses and therefore not part of the profits. That's why raising or lowering the taxes on corporations themselves doesn't affect them very much.

Now, when one of the corporate owners gets capital gains income, it is taxed at a different rate than when one of the employees of said corporation gets a paycheck. The money paid out by said corporation in salaries or dividends is not a part of its profit, and is not taxed. Therefore, the money is not taxed twice.

Now, those state taxes you gloat about do represent money that is taxed twice, thanks to Trump and his tax reform. I pay taxes to the federal government, then pay taxes to the State of California on the whole amount, including what Uncle Sam has already taken. You seem to think that's all well and good, and my just desserts for living in a "liberal" state.

Or, maybe I've misinterpreted your stance on the matter of double taxation.
 

antiquity

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2016
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
1,083
Location
Northwest Peninsula
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What does a country full of old people do to solve ther SSI problems, they go bankrupt or figure out a way to reduce the old population.

Lets fix SSI and Medicare by promoting Euthanasia. we are spending entirely to much on healthcare the last year of our lives. We as a society need to understand that our innate greed for life is draining resources from our society in general. Most other nations accept death so much better than the US. We spend amazing amounts of money always trying to retain that youthful appearance. Let's welcome odl age, let's cherish it and let's accept the end of our lives more gracefully than being bedridden for the last year of our lives.

FYI SSI is not collected by old people per say. Old people in this case 62 for early retirement and 67 for full benefits, can collect SS after filling the 40 quarter requirement.
SSI is a disability portion of SS that can be collected at any age for varies reasons. If you want to reduce the benefits under SSI then tightening the disability requirements to collect is the only way to reduce the SSI output.
 

charliebrown

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
333
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FYI SSI is not collected by old people per say. Old people in this case 62 for early retirement and 67 for full benefits, can collect SS after filling the 40 quarter requirement.
SSI is a disability portion of SS that can be collected at any age for varies reasons. If you want to reduce the benefits under SSI then tightening the disability requirements to collect is the only way to reduce the SSI output.

A majority of SSI/SS/ whatever it is called is mailed to old people. If they are dead, the checks stop being written. A good pandemic that unproportionally effects elderly would drastically reduce our SSI and Medicare expenses as a country.
 
Top Bottom