The fairest tax system

[Neomalthusian]

Popping the cap keeps the system healthy for at least another 70 years.

Point #1: The more wages that Social Security taxes, the more it owes in benefits.
Point #2: Even raising the cap by a lot would do very little to close financing shortfalls.
Point #3: About one-fifth of workers would be affected by an increase in the cap.
Point #4: Taxing 90% of national wages represents neither a historic average nor a policy intent of the 1983 reforms.
Point #5: Raising the cap fails the equity test in that it would not actually hit those individuals who benefited from an increase in income inequality since 1983.
Point #6: Raising the cap fails the equity test, part 2: even if intergenerational effects were ignored, raising the cap would still hit the wrong people –it would hit those who have already paid more because of rising income inequality.

Link (supporting arguments)

Conclusion: It is certainly reasonable to propose raising the cap on taxable wages, especially if it is combined with corrective off-setting measures. The Simpson-Bowles commission, while including a cap increase in its reform plan, was careful to combine it with a substantial decrease in the benefit schedule for high-income earners so that it would not result in higher expenditures.

Serious discussion of raising the cap, however, needs to recognize the substantial policy problems associated with the idea, and most especially as a provision offered in isolation. It would adversely affect a substantial number of workers, and it would not at all address the equity issues usually invoked in its support. Raising the cap would also produce a nettlesome choice between severing Social Security’s time-honored contribution-benefit connection vs. obligating more benefits to those who need them least. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, even a large and economically painful cap increase would only modestly reduce Social Security’s future financial shortfalls.

In my opinion, raising the cap turns something we like to call "insurance" into welfare.

 

[haymarket]

Please go back and reread my post. I clearly stated that popping the cap should be linked to freezing current benefit levels. That pretty much negates those other issues you bring up.

I do not care about historic levels.
I do not care about some supposed 'equity test'.
I do not care about the 1983 reforms or the earthshaking consequences of daring to deviate from them.
I want a total pop of the cap - not raised to 90% of earners as your post indicates you are responding to.

You already have the conclusion of the CBO report that such an action would safely take the program over another 70 years.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Maybe, but whatever the fix it will always amount to increasing taxes and/or decreasing benefits. But as Bass was saying in the video in that other thread, it's always going to be least popular with the older folks (who show up to the voting booths), so it becomes very difficult. But at least there's an answer. Not so much with the health care programs though.

 

[TurtleDude]

Projected problems are not real problems today. They can be solved with solutions put in place today and thus solving the future projections. There is nothing complicated about this. This is only simple income and expenses. Nothing more.

taking more money from the rich and giving it to people who have not paid a proper amount for the return they expect?

 

[TurtleDude]

Maybe, but whatever the fix it will always amount to increasing taxes and/or decreasing benefits. But as Bass was saying in the video in that other thread, it's always going to be least popular with the older folks (who show up to the voting booths), so it becomes very difficult. But at least there's an answer. Not so much with the health care programs though.

I love the current dem schemes

people should not even have to pay a fair rate for the return they want-the dems will buy their votes by making the overtaxed rich pay even more.

its like saying buy an insurance policy that requires premiums of 1000 a year and only pay 500 and we will make someone else pay that 500 remaining fee if you vote for us

 

[haymarket]

Maybe, but whatever the fix it will always amount to increasing taxes and/or decreasing benefits. But as Bass was saying in the video in that other thread, it's always going to be least popular with the older folks (who show up to the voting booths), so it becomes very difficult. But at least there's an answer. Not so much with the health care programs though.

There is no problem now and there will be no problem for at least 25 years from the figures I have already cited. This means that a gradual and tempered increase in age eligibility can be adopted with little or no pain at all. You could raise the age to get benefits at two months above the present age every year for 18 years and end up at that point of having a age that begins at 65 and not at 62 like today. And even then you would get 25% fewer benefits than if you had waited an additional four years - which would be 71 instead of 67 as it is today. This would be relatively painless and would be done over a length of time and would probably be accepted by the groups you cite as opposing changes.

Popping the cap while freezing benefits would greatly go a long ways to meeting financial demands of the future.

 

[haymarket]

taking more money from the rich and giving it to people who have not paid a proper amount for the return they expect?

Again, the program is called SOCIAL SECURITY. It is a societal program for society not just individual citizens. It is not an IRA. You seem to be confused about the fundamental difference.

 

[geewrd]

You want detail where you yourself provided little?

Government is Good - The Forgotten Achievements of Government

It is a very long list and it runs four pages.

I'm sure Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution is a highly objective source.

let me guess you did this

I don't want my social security tax liability to go up. Increasing taxes is a solution for failed accounting and an irresponsible government. I rest my case. I could do much better indivudually. Given the 10 grand my employer and I spend on social security each year, I could have 1.2 million dollars in 40 years. The only way I could get that out of social security is if I live well past the average life expectancy. Social security creates negative economic pressure, as do many government economic programs. Before you start talking like raising taxes are some simple thing, you should remember that Romer and Romer found the negative tax multiplier to be over 3. So you better show me that social security injects at least 2 extra dollars into the economy for every 1 dollar that it pays out.

You're off in loony land about education. What does Japan have to do with education in the United States? The article I posted said nothing about Japan. I don't care about all the reports you've read about Japan in education. I posted an article showing American is slipping badly in the hard subjects worldwide. Education in America is mostly administered by the government. It is failing.

I guess 1.5 million drug related arrest per year are just for fun then. You go to downtown Cleveland and get busted by a cop for having a few pounds of meth on you and see how serious they are about drugs.
I didn't no government could eradicate drugs. Obviously a fascist police state government could, but ours can't, it doesn't have the ability. it's attempts have been a failure.

 

[haymarket]

I'm sure Government is Good - An Unapologetic Defense of a Vital Institution is a highly objective source.

It is an excellent source of information. Why don't you respond to it instead of making a silly attack upon it?

I don't want my social security tax liability to go up. Increasing taxes is a solution for failed accounting and an irresponsible government. I rest my case. I could do much better indivudually. Given the 10 grand my employer and I spend on social security each year, I could have 1.2 million dollars in 40 years. The only way I could get that out of social security is if I live well past the average life expectancy. Social security creates negative economic pressure, as do many government economic programs. Before you start talking like raising taxes are some simple thing, you should remember that Romer and Romer found the negative tax multiplier to be over 3. So you better show me that social security injects at least 2 extra dollars into the economy for every 1 dollar that it pays out.

You are looking at Social Security as if it were an IRA - which it is not. The problem is in your own seriously flawed and skewed perspective.

You're off in loony land about education. What does Japan have to do with education in the United States? The article I posted said nothing about Japan. I don't care about all the reports you've read about Japan in education. I posted an article showing American is slipping badly in the hard subjects worldwide. Education in America is mostly administered by the government. It is failing.

And i explained to you why centralized and national education systems have a built in advantage producing better standardized test results than America with its hopeless scores of thousands of different systems. Of course, I wonder just who would it be on which end of the political spectrum that would oppose one national system with the advantages of many of those countries you point to?

I guess 1.5 million drug related arrest per year are just for fun then. You go to downtown Cleveland and get busted by a cop for having a few pounds of meth on you and see how serious they are about drugs.
I didn't no government could eradicate drugs. Obviously a fascist police state government could, but ours can't, it doesn't have the ability. it's attempts have been a failure.

We have not tried to eradicate drugs so we do not know if we can or not. Your beef is with government as an institution. And I have shown you that government can indeed eradicate drug use.

Lets face it and be honest here - you hate government as an institution and you do NOT want it to work because you have made an ideological commitment to a way of thinking that is opposed to government.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, the program is called SOCIAL SECURITY. It is a societal program for society not just individual citizens. It is not an IRA. You seem to be confused about the fundamental difference.

call it what you want-that doesn't justify yet another buy the votes of the many scheme

and being an attorney who actually STUDIED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS PONZI SCHEME I know damn well that the scumsucking bastards who implemented this clearly unconstitutional piece of excrement ASSURED EVERYONE WHO QUESTIONED IT that it was not an INCOME REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME.

TELL ME HAYMARKET what does FICA stand for?

 

[haymarket]

call it what you want-that doesn't justify yet another buy the votes of the many scheme

and being an attorney who actually STUDIED THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THIS PONZI SCHEME I know damn well that the scumsucking bastards who implemented this clearly unconstitutional piece of excrement ASSURED EVERYONE WHO QUESTIONED IT that it was not an INCOME REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME.

TELL ME HAYMARKET what does FICA stand for?

Why tell me Mr. Educated Attorney who Has Studied the situation: does the US Supreme Court agree with you?

As to your question about FICA... you should learn how to use the resources at your fingertips...... like this

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax ( /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2] —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits.

I am shocked that a highly educated attorney who has studied did not know this. :doh

 

[TurtleDude]

Why tell me Mr. Educated Attorney who Has Studied the situation: does the US Supreme Court agree with you?

Most legal scholars agree that the FDR court completely ignored the constitution and 130 years of precedent

the FDR court was dishonest, unprincipled and completely rejected sound and well respected decisions because their only interest was in doing FDR's bidding

 

[haymarket]

Most legal scholars agree that the FDR court completely ignored the constitution and 130 years of precedent

the FDR court was dishonest, unprincipled and completely rejected sound and well respected decisions because their only interest was in doing FDR's bidding

And that opinion at 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[TurtleDude]

tell me Haymarket, what was the proper reason for the USSC to reject the finding in Schechter Poultry?

what made their interpretation of the tenth amendment change so radically?

 

[TurtleDude]

And that opinion at 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

this is funny coming from a guy who has kittens over Citizens United

its easy to say nah nah nah the court agrees with me

lets see if you have the wattage to given an honest argument why their decisions that upheld the ponzi scheme were based on sound precedent and interpretation of the constitution.

 

[Henrin]

Why tell me Mr. Educated Attorney who Has Studied the situation: does the US Supreme Court agree with you?

Why do you bring up court ruling or the SC in general when you never bother to defend them? I have a theory though. I think you can't come up with an argument against what you are dealing with so you lean on the SC and by doing so you figure you don't actually need to argue against anything after that point. In fact, that is exactly what you use it for. Once you mention a SC ruling or even the SC in general you completely shut down and keep saying some crap about how it doesn't matter what anyone says. Its very lame and not worth dealing with.

Oh look, my theory holds true again.

And that opinion at 4 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

 

[haymarket]

tell me Haymarket, what was the proper reason for the USSC to reject the finding in Schechter Poultry?

what made their interpretation of the tenth amendment change so radically?

If you want me to educate you, I will have to bill you by the hour. Send me a PM and I will give you the rates. Given your vast wealth, I have little doubt you can afford the illumination.

Or you can do a search right here since we have gone through this several times before. Its up to you.

 

[haymarket]

Why do you bring up court ruling or the SC in general when you never bother to defend them? I have a theory though. I think you can't come up with an argument against what you are dealing with so you lean on the SC and by doing so you figure you don't actually need to argue against anything after that point. In fact, that is exactly what you use it for. Once you mention a SC ruling or even the SC in general you completely shut down and keep saying some crap about how it doesn't matter what anyone says. Its very lame and not worth dealing with.

Why do I have to defend reality?

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you bring up court ruling or the SC in general when you never bother to defend them? I have a theory though. I think you can't come up with an argument against what you are dealing with so you lean on the SC and by doing so you figure you don't actually need to argue against anything after that point. In fact, that is exactly what you use it for. Once you mention a SC ruling or even the SC in general you completely shut down and keep saying some crap about how it doesn't matter what anyone says. Its very lame and not worth dealing with.

Bingo-this is a brilliant and accurate observation. Its a statist appeal to authority. Its like the people who cite some left wing economist-whose socialist BS they have no clue if its right or wrong and demand others argue why its wrong since they don't have the wattage to establish why its right

 

[TurtleDude]

If you want me to educate you, I will have to bill you by the hour. Send me a PM and I will give you the rates. Given your vast wealth, I have little doubt you can afford the illumination.

Or you can do a search right here since we have gone through this several times before. Its up to you.

Henrin pegged it.

You don't have the ability to explain something just about every scholar admitted was a complete and dishonest break with precedent.

political reality (FDR won a major landslide in 1936) and the threat of a court packing scheme is the only explanation can come up with

In other words the Justices were yellow bellied cowards who abdicated their sacred duty

 

[Missed AB]

Do you know the difference between apples and cinderblocks?

When Madoff compiles a record of 75 years of excellence with the full faith and credit of the US Government behind him, feel free to dig him up and use him as an example. Until then, you got nothing but wild speculation and pretending that; you can foretell the future.

Of course, you could always prove your ability to do so by giving us the winning numbers for nexts week powerball lottery drawing. Then somebody might listen to you.

The point is that faith, and blind eye treatment to what has the legs to be a problem is harmful.

The fact that the SSA does not invest the money into accounts, and it relies on new workers to pay the way for the older workers is exactly how a ponzi scheme works. The only difference is with SS, when you die the liability dies with you. The problem will occur when there is a shortage of new paying members due to war, disease, population changes, or privatization. At that point the SS Scheme falls apart and looks like the ponzi scheme it is. Even the SSA states the main difference is that they still make payments. The same argument was made by madoff for the first 20 years.

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do I have to defend reality?

That is idiotic

its like saying a man was condemned to death and you say he deserved to be executed and when we ask why you said "because the judge said so"

why> what was the proof

doesn't matter-the judge said so

what was the evidence of guilt

who cares he was found guilty

 

[geewrd]

It is an excellent source of information. Why don't you respond to it instead of making a silly attack upon it?

I will let the url speak for it's own objectivity. Anyone who thinks our government in it's current form is a wonderful thing that will only get better with growth is probably mentally ill.

You are looking at Social Security as if it were an IRA - which it is not. The problem is in your own seriously flawed and skewed perspective.

So what is it then? It's a machine that I put a dollar into and get 90 cents outs. NOT INTERESTED! My local bank can do much much better, and my money is backed by "full faith of the US government".

And i explained to you why centralized and national education systems have a built in advantage producing better standardized test results than America with its hopeless scores of thousands of different systems. Of course, I wonder just who would it be on which end of the political spectrum that would oppose one national system with the advantages of many of those countries you point to?

From Education in Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Schools up to university level are almost exclusively funded and administered by municipalities of Finland (local government)

Care to admit how wrong you are yet?
I was homeschooled my entire life by my parents, and I have never scored less than 99% percentile on any standardized other than the ACT which I scored in the 95th percentile on, mainly because I slept through most of the last section.

We have not tried to eradicate drugs so we do not know if we can or not. Your beef is with government as an institution. And I have shown you that government can indeed eradicate drug use.

Lets face it and be honest here - you hate government as an institution and you do NOT want it to work because you have made an ideological commitment to a way of thinking that is opposed to government.

You're exactly right I hate government, but not because of an ideological commitment to a way of thinking, because the government screws up everything they do.

I want to go back to Coolidge

From Calvin Coolidge | The White House
He rapidly became popular. In 1924, as the beneficiary of what was becoming known as "Coolidge prosperity," he polled more than 54 percent of the popular vote.
...
The political genius of President Coolidge, Walter Lippmann pointed out in 1926, was his talent for effectively doing nothing: "This active inactivity suits the mood and certain of the needs of the country admirably. It suits all the business interests which want to be let alone.... And it suits all those who have become convinced that government in this country has become dangerously complicated and top-heavy...."

Sounds like utopia to me

 

[haymarket]

Henrin pegged it.

You don't have the ability to explain something just about every scholar admitted was a complete and dishonest break with precedent.

political reality (FDR won a major landslide in 1936) and the threat of a court packing scheme is the only explanation can come up with

In other words the Justices were yellow bellied cowards who abdicated their sacred duty

Henrin is blowing smoke and its rising up behind you. But its interesting to watching you and he get so thrilled by the experience.

As I said Turtle, I am a professional educator. You are a professional attorney. You expect to be paid for your legal opinion and that is right and just. I too expect to be paid for my educational services. if you want me to educate on the merits of the Social Security system I will consider doing so. I have already done the traditional drug pushers courtesy first sample free of charge by informing you of your request to educate you what FICA was. If you expect me to illuminate and educate you to the details of Social Security law and history it will cost you.

Send me a PM and I will be glad to give you a rate. In honor of your many posts accusing me and others of using it, I will indulge you and use a scale based on the Marxist principle of to each according to his abilities. I am sure you would expect no less.

 

[TurtleDude]

Henrin is blowing smoke and its rising up behind you. But its interesting to watching you and he get so thrilled by the experience.

He hit the nail on the head. I am still waiting for your learned explanation as to what caused the FDR lapdog court to reverse course so suddenly.