Reply With Quote
Repug deficit hawks show up and start shrieking only during Dem administrations.
Repug enormous deficits and unfunded programs and wars, OK. Dems, not OK.
Alan Simpson, co-chairman of Obama's bi-partisan commission for reducing the mounting federal debt, is quoted in today's NYTimes as a true
Republican of the Reagan era, i.e., one who is more concerned with fighting deficits than with tax cuts, per se.
My favorite line of his in this article is: "I don't believe we ever had a war where we didn't have a tax to finance the war,..."
http:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us...impson.html?hp
Having said that, of course, there was Johnson's inclusion of social security funds into the general revenue funds so as to minimize the cost of the VN war.
Still, I miss this kind of republican.
Repug deficit hawks show up and start shrieking only during Dem administrations.
Repug enormous deficits and unfunded programs and wars, OK. Dems, not OK.
Alan Simpson from my home state of Wyoming.
He was a Senator at the same time Cheney was a representative of the state.
I always liked Alan.
One can always say about him: klatu verada nikto.
He would have made an excellent president. Too bad we got Cheney instead.
It seems to me that debt reduction is simply not going to get done without democrats agreeing to some cuts in en lement programs, and republicans agreeing to some tax increases in some areas.
One suggestion I have that I know is not popular among my age group but I think is inevitable for our younger generations: either means test social security payments or tax the payments at 100% for those making over $X dollars per year. I don't know what the X amount needs to be, but doing this would ease the burden on the younger generation who have to pay in, and wouldn't hurt those who have plenty of annual income without social security.
This suggestion would affect me personally. I am old enough now to be receiving social security. I have chosen not to, even though I paid in at the highest possible rate for about 25 years. But I don't need it, and I think that more in my age and income group should be willing to do it...and if not, we should be made to do it.
Let me opt out.
Let my people go.
Part of the solution has to involve bumping up the age at which people can start collecting benefits.
I'd love to have that option, but it will never happen.
Do you mean opting out of the social security system? If so, you are right, it will never happen. At least, they might let you do what I'm doing, opt out of taking the payments, but they will never let you opt out of paying in.
I mean opting out as in the government stops taking 12.4% of your paycheck (employee+employer contribution) and you forfeit the right to ever collect anything. Anything you already put in is gone, so there's no way to get any of that back. If the government were to offer that deal to people, I for one would take it.
Purely a hypothetical discussion, I know this would never actually happen.
Yeah, you're right.
See, if I were a young(er) person today, I would be livid at how this has all been mismanaged. There are lots of folks of my era who really believe that the system is a retirement system, like a pension. I don't think it ever was. I think it began as a wealth transfer system to get older workers out of the work force so younger people could take their jobs. Older people couldn't stop working during the depression because whatever savings they had built up went down the capital market tubes. So FDR said okay, we'll pay you and take money out of worker's pay (and employer must match) in order to balance the outflow with the inflow. So, to me, it was always a wealth transfer mechanism, and today, with so many of us old and living forever, the burden is just horrid on the younger generation, I think.
But, bottom line, you're right...you'll never get out of it.
Well, SS has not been managed very well as a pension system, but most other pension systems have gone down the tube.
It would be very simple to fix SS by increasing the tax threshold and means testing, which I think would be a compromise for both GOP and Dem, but our pols are hopeless when it comes to rational solutions.
You are absolutely right on both counts. Your observation that most other pension systems have gone the tubes is as well, which is only one of the reasons that no one is gonna be allowed to ever 'privatize' SS. Folks are too afraid that the private sector will steal the money and the taxpayers will end up foting the bill for people's retirement anyway, so why not cut to the chase and just do it?
Means testing is rational, IMO, too. But, man, would it create a hue and cry!
The whole defined-benefit pension concept is fundamentally flawed. It's nothing more than a ponzi scheme and ponzi schemes don't work. If they did work, Bernie Madoff wouldn't be in prison, he'd be in charge of running the social security trust fund.
The politicians will wait until the last minute and then they'll do just enough in the way of tax increases and benefit cuts to back away from the ledge. Then we'll start heading for the ledge again and the cycle will repeat.It would be very simple to fix SS by increasing the tax threshold and means testing, which I think would be a compromise for both GOP and Dem, but our pols are hopeless when it comes to rational solutions.
Personalized (not the same thing as privatized) accounts is the way to go. Well, it would be if we were actually interested in solving the problem instead of following the kick-the-can approach. Take people's contributions, invest them in treasuries and put those treasuries in dedicated accounts that only that person can touch.
Realistically, yeah they will have to raise taxes. They have pinned that as a must-needed option. Just go at it 50-50, cut en lements - raise taxes...just get it done ffs.
The problem with defined-benefit plans is that they are habitually under-funded.
You are correct in that they tend to function in a practical sense as ponzi schemes, but the concept itself is possible actuarily speaking.
You are also correct about the way this thing will play out. We will play brinkmanship, and do juuuust enough to stave off looming disaster.
I have been giving this a bit of a think or two.
It seems to me that the GOP will have a harder time raising taxes than the Dems will have cutting benefits.
Both must be done, but it will hurt the GOP more, because the crazies on the right have much less tolerance for comprimise on that issue.
I would guess it will accelerate the push for a third party on the part of the political right. Tea party might formally organize?
"Tea party might formally organize"
Tea party = Repugs in faux enraged "populist" clothing.
municipal/state/teacher/fire/police/civil service pension plans are defined-benefit (aka guaranteed) and are about $2T - $3T underfunded, as the govt's have been poaching/under-matching the pension funds for decades.
(lower 90%) America is so ed, and America doesn't have a ing clue.
When you refuse to consider "over-benefitted" as a possibility then "under funded" is the only thing left.
The tea party movement has already been overrun by partisan republicans who have distorted their message of fiscal responsibility and turned it into anti-obama. Any chance the tea party had to formally organize died when they started letting the Rick Perry's and Sarah Palin's identify themselves with them.
The last part, about tea parties, is 1000% right.
Of late, the GOP has shown little appe e for any cuts to Medicare either.
"little appe e for any cuts to Medicare either"
only because they are obstructionists, simply being reflexively contrary to anything the Dems want. They've been wanting to slaughter (poor peoples') en lements for 30+ years. Don't fret, The En lement Exterminators Will Be Baaaack.
Indeed. If a minimum income guarantee is desired for every individual in retirement, it does not follow that everyone should receive a payout. SS should be a welfare program, instead of this farcical universal program in which the poor young are taxed on their earnings to finance payouts to millionaire grannies.
And increasing the retirement age has to be considered, barring any fundamental change such as a conversion to a more limited welfare program. The program was designed to cover retirement at age 65 when the average lifespan was around 63 years.
Finally, the notion of this as a pension system with attendant individual claims on a portion of it must be eliminated. It's a tax and transfer program, nothing more.
But, yes, I would expect any sort of common-sense compromise reform to never have a chance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
