• 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, Medicaid, and Medicare

I'm saying that the Boomers who think that they are going to be able to:



Are going to be in for quite a surprise when all this stuff starts going down in the 2020s. :) They started taking from OASI to support SSDI just last year ;)


As a generation, Boomers haven't saved for their own retirement, and they refuse to allow any changes to a system in order to save it. They're going to die in poverty and I, for one, think it couldn't happen to a more appropriate generation than the one who instituted If It Feels Good Do It And Don't Worry About The Future into the American psyche :)
Are going to be in for quite a surprise when all this stuff starts going down in the 2020s.
Politicians won't let this happen. People have been spewing this crap for decades.
Besides, money isn't an issue, just ask Greenspan and others.
They started taking from OASI to support SSDI just last year
It's all accounting, nothing is actually "saved" to take from.
As a generation, Boomers haven't saved for their own retirement, and they refuse to allow any changes to a system in order to save it.
Your posts read off like that of a millennial who hates old people. Claiming boomers haven't "saved" is silly, since quite a few have private retirement savings, and the fact that boomers have been paying taxes for social security, even though the tax needs to be suspended and doesn't really fund social security, it's still money being taken from these seniors.
they refuse to allow any changes to a system in order to save it
Because the system is fine. Money isn't an issue, we need to focus on encouraging productivity, ensuring their are enough real resources.
They're going to die in poverty and I, for one, think it couldn't happen to a more appropriate generation than the one who instituted If It Feels Good Do It And Don't Worry About The Future into the American psyche
They're not going to die in poverty because the world continues to improve year after year. Food production gets better and better, new energy sources, new medical breakthroughs, world poverty continues to go down, America is a country with plenty of resources and people.
 
NO, they are not a "cost", they are in the case of SS a delayed payment, since they were collected from earlier earnings. Sure, because according to you, people should not get back what was previously contributed.BS, previous gens paid for then current retirees and for the fund...which pays out in part for their own retirement. Yer just further displaying something other than an "amazing" understanding.
So I guess the 6.2% being paid by corporations are the people's money then.... It's not sorry.

~Roger T. Cooper~
 
:) False. According to the Social Security Trustees, uncapping FICA and raising the retirement age to 69 (and then indexing it to longevity) gets us to about 2026.

And, of course, that is using magical static scoring, which assumes that people don't change their behavior in response to tax incentives. In reality, in return for punishing manual laborers (low skill workers have a much harder time working until 69), we will get significantly reduced revenues off of that baseline. Meaning, of course, that even the 2026 date is optimistic :)

And, of course, you have to convince all those folks who are 61 and looking forward to getting that check next year to work for another 8 years, instead.

Why would anyone listen to a group that claims:
but is on a road toward insolvency.
Absurd. When that time comes, accounts will still be marked up. It's political suicide not to do this.
 
Sorry my grammar is not on par with yours. But when you are trying to rapidly respond to several people it gets a bit strenuous to meticulously peruse my sentences. I know how to formulate a sentence, and I have excellent grammar. And I also would ask you not to make this debate about insults at my grammar when I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion with you about social security and all the other federal programs which are draining this country.

~Roger T. Cooper~
You are not making "intelligent argument" when you avoid your fundamental errors on the conflating of FICA rates with tax rates on income from SS payouts. If you are going to describe an amazing plan, your language had better be accurate in describing either the current plan of your amazing fix. But you aren't really interested in a fix, you, just like so many other RW nuts, want to destroy our current system because it is beyond your ability to comprehend it.
 
After 3.3k, the government only pays you back 1/3 of what you earned. So let's say you have enough money in your trust fund to receive 5k. The extra 1.7k was originally 2.1k but it was "taxed" at a rate of 67%. Meaning 2/3 of your money, beyond 3.3k monthly payments, is withheld BT the federal government.

~Roger T. Cooper~

Oh that... The benefit formula is indeed different dependent upon one's earnings. Lower earners get considerably more back than they put into, those on the higher end get back more than they put in too, just not as much of an overage.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf
 
So I guess the 6.2% being paid by corporations are the people's money then.... It's not sorry.

~Roger T. Cooper~
It is, because if you had an amazing understanding of FICA, you would know that if there was no FICA/SS, employers would be paying that amount in wages, that is a commonly understood principle that most slash and burn artists have to avoid....or never understood in the first place.
 
You are not making "intelligent argument" when you avoid your fundamental errors on the conflating of FICA rates with tax rates on income from SS payouts. If you are going to describe an amazing plan, your language had better be accurate in describing either the current plan of your amazing fix. But you aren't really interested in a fix, you, just like so many other RW nuts, want to destroy our current system because it is beyond your ability to comprehend it.
First off I'm not right wing. I am a moderate that accepts realities that make sense, not ones promised in some unspoken, unrealistic, and extinct American dream.

~Roger T. Cooper~
 
It is, because if you had an amazing understanding of FICA, you would know that if there was no FICA/SS, employers would be paying that amount in wages, that is a commonly understood principle that most slash and burn artists have to avoid....or never understood in the first place.
Any proof...

~Roger T. Cooper~
 
:) False. According to the Social Security Trustees, uncapping FICA and raising the retirement age to 69 (and then indexing it to longevity) gets us to about 2026.

And, of course, that is using magical static scoring, which assumes that people don't change their behavior in response to tax incentives. In reality, in return for punishing manual laborers (low skill workers have a much harder time working until 69), we will get significantly reduced revenues off of that baseline. Meaning, of course, that even the 2026 date is optimistic :)

And, of course, you have to convince all those folks who are 61 and looking forward to getting that check next year to work for another 8 years, instead.

All did was make the retirement age 69 and subject all wages to the FICA tax.

fNnEQW8.png


Looks pretty solvent to me
 
Okay. Allow me to break it down for you. The Federal government taxes your actual income at 6.2% and this income is collected by FICA. This is also supplemented by an additional 6.2% by whomever you work for, assuming you do not work for yourself in which case you pay the total 12.4%.

However, their is a tax on the actual monies accumulated in your Social Security Trust Fund of 1.9%, introduced under President Ronald Reagan as a way to preserve the SS program. This tax was raised by President Bill Clinton. These aren't claims and these aren't falsehoods. They are cold hard facts.
I have no idea what you are talking about, I doubt you do either.

And for the last time. My grammar should not matter. The fact of the matter is I'm trying to help people by coming up with ideas based in fact, and whether I misspell a word or not I'm doing something useful with my time besides Nick picking over a misplaced letter....

~Roger T. Cooper~
It is worse than "letters", it is whole sentences that ignore the context of the preceding sentence, the misuse of words like "cost", the injection of mystery taxes.
 
All did was make the retirement age 69 and subject all wages to the FICA tax.

fNnEQW8.png


Looks pretty solvent to me

Take a look at the bottom graph.

The "Trust Fund" itself is another way of saying "General Fund Expenditures".

This becomes important because there is such a thing as Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, and a host of other government programs, which compete for those General Fund dollars.



And, again, that's using magically optimistic revenue predictions, which depend upon people in higher income brackets not noticing or reacting to the fact that they are having an additional ~12.4% tax rate added onto their income.
 
I have no idea what you are talking about, I doubt you do either.

It is worse than "letters", it is whole sentences that ignore the context of the preceding sentence, the misuse of words like "cost", the injection of mystery taxes.
Well you are entitled to your opinion. You obviously are blind to anything besides your own point of view.

Although I highly suggest you find some kind of English forum and debate grammatical errors or something.

I'm done explaining myself to someone who can't reference anything besides a few errors in my sentences.

~Roger T. Cooper~
 
Any proof...

~Roger T. Cooper~
Plenty, but it is beyond yer paygrade. The most simple understanding is your SE fica payment. Instead of paying the full 12.4%, that would be income, and if fica was eliminated for all employees, it would be the same since the labor market is not changed by the change in tax, the compensation to an employee is market driven, fica is a part of the wage to the employee, whether it is paid currently or delayed.
 
Well you are entitled to your opinion. You obviously are blind to anything besides your own point of view.

Although I highly suggest you find some kind of English forum and debate grammatical errors or something.

I'm done explaining myself to someone who can't reference anything besides a few errors in my sentences.

~Roger T. Cooper~
So, you are not going to reference your "1.9%" mystery tax on "individual SS trust funds"?

Cool.
 
First off I'm not right wing. I am a moderate that accepts realities that make sense, not ones promised in some unspoken, unrealistic, and extinct American dream.

~Roger T. Cooper~
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. In a single day, you have spewed rw anti-SS rhetoric, are unable to correctly describe the current system, have displayed anything other that an "amazing" understanding of the current system....and you are not interested in fixing it, you want it ended. I have a suggestion....move to Somalia.
 
It's not right wing to want to get rid of social security. The fact of the matter so long as you remind blind to the fact that parties won't solve the problem, as you obviously are, then you will continue to oppose real change. Therefore I'm done arguing with you. But you have a wonderful day.

~Roger T. Cooper~
 
It's not right wing to want to get rid of social security. The fact of the matter so long as you remind blind to the fact that parties won't solve the problem, as you obviously are, then you will continue to oppose real change. Therefore I'm done arguing with you. But you have a wonderful day.

~Roger T. Cooper~
From a historical, and political capability, I see the end of SS as a gradual means test.
It will start simple, (there used to be a 2:1 means test on SSI benefits if a recipient earned income before age 70).
I could see something like, if a person has income from any source say greater than $3K per month,
then their SS payment goes down by $1 for each $2 over $3K.
It would be sold with hyperbole, by asking, does Bill Gates really need that $2000 a month!
It would also dovetail into what SS is supposed to be, supplemental retirement benefits.
Whatever the replacement, the current system in untenable, from a finical standpoint, without changes.
 
Oh, yer gonna hide yer responses, cute.
It's not right wing to want to get rid of social security.
Quack.
The fact of the matter so long as you remind blind to the fact that parties won't solve the problem, as you obviously are, then you will continue to oppose real change.
The "problem" has been fixed before, with minor changes, the same can be done....but not by the reich wing.
Therefore I'm done arguing with you.
Yer running and hiding, and you won't even acknowledge easy to understand concepts like wage in lieu of fica taxes, as explained.
But you have a wonderful day.

~Roger T. Cooper~
I am, especially when I clobber "amazing" arguments.
 
If SS is disbanded, which lets be honest it likely never will be, but if so I propose that people be placed in charge of their own retirement for several reasons.

The government takes money from your pay 6.2% from you and 6.2% from whomever you work for and that out together is going to make up your social security. That 6.2% they take from you could be used by citizens in their personal lives or could be invested in ways that don't have caps and payment regulations. The 6.2% invested by corporations could be taken but the tax on corporations could be raised by say 3%, which generates a good deal of revenue but the cost of social security has been lifted.
Although I would like to stress that I want to PHASE it out. Which means people who have placed money in the system would still be eligible for their benefits. So 65 year old men and women aren't list for retirement, or even 45 year olds you know.

As for Medicaid and Medicare, when you look at the entire situation we pay at least 1.45% of our income to Medicare, and their are state Medicaid taxes we pay. When Medicare and Medicaid are abolished we would be eliminating the taxes on them, which would allow a new healthcare tax of 3-4% to be introduced. This new healthcare tax in conjunction with funds being freed up by the phasing out of social security would pay for universal healthcare that wouldn't be that much more expensive than the current system(s) we have.

I do believe to be the job of citizens to pay for parts of their healthcare, but the majority is a right and can be provided by the government. And the only way to create a working system for healthcare is if it is government mandated that every citizen use it, because every citizen would be contributing to paying for it. But if a citizen so chooses, it shouldn't be illegal to seek out additional healthcare from their job, third party places, etc.

~Roger T. Cooper~

You didn't directly quote my post, but since this response addresses my post, I'll assume it's me you are talking to. Okay?


So...your only explanation of your logical inconsistencies is that you somehow believe that SS is not a right, but you believe health care is a right. Still sounds illogical to me.

In any case, I don't think your figures for covering the costs of UHC are accurate. Just my gut opinion, but I think you'll have to raise taxes quite a bit more than 3-4%...which is already an almost three-fold increase over current Medicare taxes (if your number is even correct). And, exactly what funds will be freed up by phasing out SS? No matter what scheme you come up with, there will STILL be SS payments to take care of for a long, long time.

Face it...in order to implement your desires, the government WILL have to continue massive deficit spending...something you don't like one bit.
 
Take a look at the bottom graph.

The "Trust Fund" itself is another way of saying "General Fund Expenditures".

This becomes important because there is such a thing as Medicare, Medicaid, SSDI, and a host of other government programs, which compete for those General Fund dollars.



And, again, that's using magically optimistic revenue predictions, which depend upon people in higher income brackets not noticing or reacting to the fact that they are having an additional ~12.4% tax rate added onto their income.

It would only be 6.2% and it would only apply to wages above $118,500 since they already pay that 6.2% on the first $118,500

Of course they would notice, but I dont see any inherent value to having a regressive tax that supports an entitlement
 
It would only be 6.2% and it would only apply to wages above $118,500 since they already pay that 6.2% on the first $118,500

Economists are generally all in agreement that employer portions of the FICA tax come out of employee pay - it would be an effective 12.4% marginal tax hike, and furthermore, it would be an effective ~12.4% hike on those who are best positioned to restructure their income so as to not pay it.

Static Scoring models promising static revenues from tax hikes always overshoot - because people change their behaviors in accordance with the new incentive structures.

It's also worth noting, of course, that by popping the cap you are also increasing Social Security's Liabilities, as the more you pay in, the more you get out.

Of course they would notice, but I dont see any inherent value to having a regressive tax that supports an entitlement

It's not really regressive - a regressive tax would have a higher rate for lower earners. It's a flat tax on your first $118,500 of income (generally, a max cap on the taxes one is required to pay strikes me as solid policy - it's something I'd like to transfer over into individual income).
 
Economists are generally all in agreement that employer portions of the FICA tax come out of employee pay - it would be an effective 12.4% marginal tax hike, and furthermore, it would be an effective ~12.4% hike on those who are best positioned to restructure their income so as to not pay it.

Static Scoring models promising static revenues from tax hikes always overshoot - because people change their behaviors in accordance with the new incentive structures.


It's not really regressive - a regressive tax would have a higher rate for lower earners. It's a flat tax on your first $118,500 of income (generally, a max cap on the taxes one is required to pay strikes me as solid policy - it's something I'd like to transfer over into individual income).

Yes it is a regressive tax, you are getting into semantics. Much like Ted Cruz's, not a VAT, VAT tax. Just like sales tax is a flat tax but its acknowledged as a regressive tax.
 
Yes it is a regressive tax, you are getting into semantics. Much like Ted Cruz's, not a VAT, VAT tax. Just like sales tax is a flat tax but its acknowledged as a regressive tax.

Cruz's tax functions the same as a VAT. :shrug: I have no problem calling it a VAT. But just as my own proposal for a tax over a minimum threshold operates as a flat tax, so does a flat tax below a maximum threshold. Just as Cruz's VAT is a VAT because it functions as a VAT, so this tax is a Flat Tax, because it functions as a Flat Tax.

That being said, "Just Raise Taxes" isn't - actually - a good solution, or a solution that actually solves.
 
Cruz's tax functions the same as a VAT. :shrug: I have no problem calling it a VAT. But just as my own proposal for a tax over a minimum threshold operates as a flat tax, so does a flat tax below a maximum threshold. Just as Cruz's VAT is a VAT because it functions as a VAT, so this tax is a Flat Tax, because it functions as a Flat Tax.

That being said, "Just Raise Taxes" isn't - actually - a good solution, or a solution that actually solves.

Im not "raising taxes", Im "flattening out the tax code to make it more fair"
 
Back
Top Bottom