Three major changes Congress wants to make to Social Security

[jaeger19]

i can't disagree with much of that. however, considering the level of right wing angst i see online these days, they obviously want new Republican voters. the way to do that is to generate more financially comfortable taxpayers in the middle class.

I don't think the republican party.. (and I am republican) really wants new republican voters. Its why we lost the last two presidential election and probably the next presidential election. Heck.. we go out of our way to label anyone who voted for Obama a "liberal, statist" POS"..
So how does that attract NEW republican voters?

And young voters that have not yet voted? They don't care about social issues, they care about education, about the economy. And a whole host of them are Hispanic...

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't think the republican party.. (and I am republican) really wants new republican voters. Its why we lost the last two presidential election and probably the next presidential election. Heck.. we go out of our way to label anyone who voted for Obama a "liberal, statist" POS"..
So how does that attract NEW republican voters?

And young voters that have not yet voted? They don't care about social issues, they care about education, about the economy. And a whole host of them are Hispanic...

If that's so, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, then we'd better get busy supporting a third party unless we're ready to have a one party system in which the Democrats run everything.

 

[Declan]

Three major changes Congress wants to make to Social Security



Instead of the general CPI





Good idea, or not?

And, do you think Congress can get its act together and pass measures like the ones described?

I think they would have an easier time getting the cap raised to a higher income level than to increase the withholding tax by 1% on poor workers.

 

[jonny5]

college or post secondary job training benefits everyone. we should guarantee access to it.

And I think its obvious that COLLEGE isnt. Actual job training would though. Which is why we need to stop sending everyone to a 4 year time waste and encourage them to learn an actual skill. The best job training is to get a job.

 

[jonny5]

Comparing the percentage of tax rate per gdp is analogous to calculating your actual tax rate per income for an individual. In other words.. lets say that you are in the top tax bracket and its 40%. but after deductions and brackets etc.. you actually pay 16% of income.

Comparing percentage of tax per gdp is a way of comparing what the real tax burden on the country is.

We generally run about 18% of gdp as an average. In the mid 2000's because of the bush tax cuts.. we dropped to about 15% and dropped a tad lower because of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill. Since some of those tax cuts have expired.. taxes have crept back up to an income tax vs gdp of about 16.7% for 2013. which again.. is still below our historical average of 18% and much lower than the high of 21% that we have paid in the past.

So in reality.. we are in one of the lowest tax burdens in history.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

Ok, that makes more sense. It sounded like you were comparing the tax bracket rate to GDP, which made no sense. Youre actually comparing REVENUE to GDP, which creates a tax rate on the economy. But we're by no means at the lowest tax rate burdens in history. Prior to the new deal the govt collected 10% of GDP, and as low as 3% in the 30s. When the highest tax rate was 90%, the govt was collecting LESS tax than it does now.

And according to the CBO, its creeping up, not down.

Over the long run, revenues would keep growing slightly
more rapidly than GDP under current law. In particular,
with rising real income, a greater proportion of income
would be taxed in higher income tax brackets because tax
brackets are indexed for inflation but not for growth in
real income. By 2039, total revenues would be 19½ percent
of GDP, CBO projects. Increases in receipts from
individual income taxes account for more than the
2 percentage-point rise in total revenues as a percentage
of GDP over the next 25 years; receipts from all other
sources, taken together, are projected to decline slightly as
a percentage of GDP (see Chapter 5).

 

[Dittohead not!]

Comparing the percentage of tax rate per gdp is analogous to calculating your actual tax rate per income for an individual. In other words.. lets say that you are in the top tax bracket and its 40%. but after deductions and brackets etc.. you actually pay 16% of income.

Comparing percentage of tax per gdp is a way of comparing what the real tax burden on the country is.

We generally run about 18% of gdp as an average. In the mid 2000's because of the bush tax cuts.. we dropped to about 15% and dropped a tad lower because of the tax cuts in the stimulus bill. Since some of those tax cuts have expired.. taxes have crept back up to an income tax vs gdp of about 16.7% for 2013. which again.. is still below our historical average of 18% and much lower than the high of 21% that we have paid in the past.

So in reality.. we are in one of the lowest tax burdens in history.

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

That sounds about right.
The problem with having collected less in taxes is that spending stayed the same, or increased. Growth of government went on unchecked, while taxes went down for lots of people.

 

[Helix]

And I think its obvious that COLLEGE isnt. Actual job training would though. Which is why we need to stop sending everyone to a 4 year time waste and encourage them to learn an actual skill. The best job training is to get a job.

society benefits either way. we should strive to have the most highly educated, highly trained population in the world. that will do us a hell of a lot more good than being the world's leading military superpower.

 

[jonny5]

society benefits either way. we should strive to have the most highly educated, highly trained population in the world. that will do us a hell of a lot more good than being the world's leading military superpower.

So long as you dont force me to pay for it. If you want to waste your money on college, thats your business.

 

[jonny5]

That sounds about right.
The problem with having collected less in taxes is that spending stayed the same, or increased. Growth of government went on unchecked, while taxes went down for lots of people.

Its not right, and spending more just made it worse. Absolving half the population of THEIR fair share made it even worse. You cant fund the country off the taxes of 5% of the population.

 

[jaeger19]

If that's so, and I have no reason to disbelieve it, then we'd better get busy supporting a third party unless we're ready to have a one party system in which the Democrats run everything.

Actually I have an idea that would save this country... if we could pull it off. Not really a third party. Something better.

we call ourselves the Party of Common Sense... and what we do is influence the primary system... because that's really the problem here. Voters only get to vote on the two crappy candidates that are selected.

so what if we designed a group around basic true conservative ideals... smaller but efficient and effective government, government out of peoples social lives, focus on economics, etc.

And what we did is get people to sign up as democrats or republicans and vote in primaries? So.. lets say you are generally a democrat in Idaho? but you really don't agree with the democratic party and their anti gun message.. etc? but you can't abide by republican wanting to tell people who they can marry?

Well Idaho is a republican state... so you get all those democrats or independents or libertarians... to become republicans and vote in the primary FOR CANDIDATES THAT WOULD REPRESENT MORE CLOSELY THEIR VIEWS.

Now lets say you live in NY? And you tend to be more republican... but you don't really like the social agenda they have... but you don't like the democrats and their spend spend spend as an answer and their anti gun stance?

You are in a democratic state... so you republican vote is basically lost..... so instead.. you join the democrat party.. and you vote for those candidates that most represent YOUR VIEWS.

So in a sense, what we do.. is at the primary level.. we get two candidates that can have an honest debate about subjects that we care about... and not always voting the lesser of two evils.

Just a thought.

 

[jaeger19]

society benefits either way. we should strive to have the most highly educated, highly trained population in the world. that will do us a hell of a lot more good than being the world's leading military superpower.

the irony is that having the most highly educated and highly trained population in the world would go a long way toward making and keeping us the worlds leading military superpower.

 

[jaeger19]

Ok, that makes more sense. It sounded like you were comparing the tax bracket rate to GDP, which made no sense. Youre actually comparing REVENUE to GDP, which creates a tax rate on the economy. But we're by no means at the lowest tax rate burdens in history. Prior to the new deal the govt collected 10% of GDP, and as low as 3% in the 30s. When the highest tax rate was 90%, the govt was collecting LESS tax than it does now.

And according to the CBO, its creeping up, not down.

Prior to the new deal? Sure... but remember.. we were a second rate military power prior to world war 1. We did not have the roads systems. hydroelectric power, the irrigations systems etc.. that were built back them.. having the tax base allowed us to become the military and economic giant that we are.

And actually when the highest tax rate was 90% we were collecting MORE money as a percentage of gdp than we are now.

Actually revenue? No but that's because the dollar was worth more.. and the average person was making a lot less than they do now.

 

[jaeger19]

That sounds about right.
The problem with having collected less in taxes is that spending stayed the same, or increased. Growth of government went on unchecked, while taxes went down for lots of people.

You would be correct.

I would state that the real reason that spending went unchecked was because in part because taxation did not keep up. Everyone benefits from government spending in this country... unless they have to pay for it. If for every spending bill, taxes had to be increased to pay for it.. you would see a dramatic change in our view of spending.

 

[jaeger19]

Its not right, and spending more just made it worse. Absolving half the population of THEIR fair share made it even worse. You cant fund the country off the taxes of 5% of the population.

You can if they have 99% of the money and income. Its just a fact.

 

[Helix]

So long as you dont force me to pay for it. If you want to waste your money on college, thats your business.

you're already paying for it in the form of public assistance. train them so that they don't need to draw assistance. it's the obvious solution.

 

[Helix]

the irony is that having the most highly educated and highly trained population in the world would go a long way toward making and keeping us the worlds leading military superpower.

it would also improve society immensely and ensure that we have the intellectual pool that we need to solve the serious problems of this century.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Actually I have an idea that would save this country... if we could pull it off. Not really a third party. Something better.

we call ourselves the Party of Common Sense... and what we do is influence the primary system... because that's really the problem here. Voters only get to vote on the two crappy candidates that are selected.

so what if we designed a group around basic true conservative ideals... smaller but efficient and effective government, government out of peoples social lives, focus on economics, etc.

And what we did is get people to sign up as democrats or republicans and vote in primaries? So.. lets say you are generally a democrat in Idaho? but you really don't agree with the democratic party and their anti gun message.. etc? but you can't abide by republican wanting to tell people who they can marry?

Well Idaho is a republican state... so you get all those democrats or independents or libertarians... to become republicans and vote in the primary FOR CANDIDATES THAT WOULD REPRESENT MORE CLOSELY THEIR VIEWS.

Now lets say you live in NY? And you tend to be more republican... but you don't really like the social agenda they have... but you don't like the democrats and their spend spend spend as an answer and their anti gun stance?

You are in a democratic state... so you republican vote is basically lost..... so instead.. you join the democrat party.. and you vote for those candidates that most represent YOUR VIEWS.

So in a sense, what we do.. is at the primary level.. we get two candidates that can have an honest debate about subjects that we care about... and not always voting the lesser of two evils.

Just a thought.

Sounds like a good thought.
I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[jonny5]

Prior to the new deal? Sure... but remember.. we were a second rate military power prior to world war 1. We did not have the roads systems. hydroelectric power, the irrigations systems etc.. that were built back them.. having the tax base allowed us to become the military and economic giant that we are.

And actually when the highest tax rate was 90% we were collecting MORE money as a percentage of gdp than we are now.

Actually revenue? No but that's because the dollar was worth more.. and the average person was making a lot less than they do now.

Thats a ideological difference. I dont agree we need federal roads, power, or irrigation. Or a massive global military.

The important part here is that the tax collected from the highest tax bracket when it was 90%, is LESS than now, when its half that much. As the tax rates have come down, the rich have assumed a larger and larger tax burden. Furthermore, as you have noted, the govt collects the same amount of tax as a share of GDP, NO MATTER what the tax rates are set to. All thats changing is WHO is paying the tax, and that is become less and less people paying more and more.

 

[jonny5]

you're already paying for it in the form of public assistance. train them so that they don't need to draw assistance. it's the obvious solution.

Only because you force me to. The obvious solution is that if you think welfare works, you should pay for it.

 

[Helix]

Only because you force me to. The obvious solution is that if you think welfare works, you should pay for it.

well, i hope that fighting any change to the status quo is worth the money that you will pay into entitlements. i suppose that's what will happen anyway, because a lot of people actively refuse to see that it's better to train people to work than to supplement their income for life.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually I have an idea that would save this country... if we could pull it off. Not really a third party. Something better.

we call ourselves the Party of Common Sense... and what we do is influence the primary system... because that's really the problem here. Voters only get to vote on the two crappy candidates that are selected.

so what if we designed a group around basic true conservative ideals... smaller but efficient and effective government, government out of peoples social lives, focus on economics, etc.

And what we did is get people to sign up as democrats or republicans and vote in primaries? So.. lets say you are generally a democrat in Idaho? but you really don't agree with the democratic party and their anti gun message.. etc? but you can't abide by republican wanting to tell people who they can marry?

Well Idaho is a republican state... so you get all those democrats or independents or libertarians... to become republicans and vote in the primary FOR CANDIDATES THAT WOULD REPRESENT MORE CLOSELY THEIR VIEWS.

Now lets say you live in NY? And you tend to be more republican... but you don't really like the social agenda they have... but you don't like the democrats and their spend spend spend as an answer and their anti gun stance?

You are in a democratic state... so you republican vote is basically lost..... so instead.. you join the democrat party.. and you vote for those candidates that most represent YOUR VIEWS.

So in a sense, what we do.. is at the primary level.. we get two candidates that can have an honest debate about subjects that we care about... and not always voting the lesser of two evils.

Just a thought.

I can see one glaring problem with your pie-in-the-sky dream: What makes you think there will be ANY candidate that more closely represents your views? Especially in those areas where the incumbent is someone you don't agree with...but is certain to get the nomination? For example, if someone actually competes with Pelosi in her district do you think that person would have different views than she does...or that the person would actually be able to depose Pelosi? I don't.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Thats a ideological difference. I dont agree we need federal roads, power, or irrigation. Or a massive global military.

The important part here is that the tax collected from the highest tax bracket when it was 90%, is LESS than now, when its half that much. As the tax rates have come down, the rich have assumed a larger and larger tax burden. Furthermore, as you have noted, the govt collects the same amount of tax as a share of GDP, NO MATTER what the tax rates are set to. All thats changing is WHO is paying the tax, and that is become less and less people paying more and more.

View attachment 67177253

Of course the wealthy are paying a larger share of the tax burden. There are more wealthy now, and fewer middle class. Who is going to pay the taxes, the homeless?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

endless war will have the same effect on America that it has had on every other nation in history. i agree with you on most of the rest, though i would utilize the public sector to fill in the gaps for the private sector where employment is concerned.



definitely not. however, taxes fund the social structure that we all benefit from, and i don't want to leave my kids with crushing debt or an insolvent system.

I agree with you on the military, so I am not sure where we disagree. Paying less to the military does not open up money for the Social Security (the insolvent system). It simply lowers the deficit. Social Security is a defined set of income and outflows. It isn't welfare, where it goes to the needy. Social Security doesn't pay a penny based on need.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

this is a complete oversimplification of the realities of today's labor market.

a lot of people can't save because they simply don't have anything left to save. some can't even find work enough to pay the bills. social security was born of necessity, and while it doesn't completely solve the problem, it at least does something.

The reason that they can't save?..... Could it have anything to do with the 10.6% of wages that they lose to Social Security? On top of that, they pay 1.8% of wages for disability which is heading for insolvency today.

 

[jonny5]

well, i hope that fighting any change to the status quo is worth the money that you will pay into entitlements. i suppose that's what will happen anyway, because a lot of people actively refuse to see that it's better to train people to work than to supplement their income for life.

Or perhaps youre wrong. In my ideology, I dont force my opinions on you. But you are free to pursure whatever you think works. I just wish I had the same freedom.