Perry no longer thinks SS is a Ponzi scheme.

mhaze said:
As the US government will be reducing spending by about 40% in the next decade to match revenues,
Click to expand...

Only if the GOP can successfully defeat common sense revenue increases.

See again my analogy of driving into an obstacle that you can see in plenty of time to avoid.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Only if the GOP can successfully defeat common sense revenue increases.

See again my analogy of driving into an obstacle that you can see in plenty of time to avoid.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly suggest raising taxes when they are already so gawl-darn high!

/sarcasm
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Only if the GOP can successfully defeat common sense revenue increases.

See again my analogy of driving into an obstacle that you can see in plenty of time to avoid.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure. Increase personal taxes to 250% of current levels. That'd get you to revenues = spending.

Little problem with that?

Wait...the problem is with JoeTheJuggler's idea of "common sense".

So spending goes down. And with it, many of the favorite entitlement spending programs vanish or are reduced.

But wait....what about the interest on the Debtstar? CBO says that goes up, from 2.4% currently to some 4-6% within the decade.

NO PROBLEM ACCORDING TO JOE! Just have some more "common sense" tax increases. Jack those personal taxes to 350% of current levels, that will handle the expected interest rate increases.

WHeeeiiiiI!

YES SIR! An average couple both working gross $100K taxed at $28K will just pay $74k, and after tax net goes from $72,000 to $26,000.


It's COMMON SENSE, Yessir!

Pay your fair share, dudes....

It's COMMON SENSE....

Wait....didn't someone around here say that US government spending was likely to be 40% less because spending would, inevitably match revenues? Oh yeah...that was me...

I just got none of that Joe_Style_Common_Sense.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
How can you possibly suggest raising taxes when they are already so gawl-darn high!

/sarcasm
Click to expand...
:D

And in fact, as I mentioned earlier, if we stop viewing Social Security as a forced IRA and see it as what it actually is*: a taxpayer funded safety net for retirees and the disabled, my suggestion that we tax all earnings rather than just the first ~$100K would probably allow us to set a lower rate on Social Security tax (similar to the Medicare tax) and still have enough revenues to cover the changing demographics we'll face in the future. (Plus I advocate means testing for benefits, so those revenues would even go further.)

But I predict mhaze will continue ignoring these common sense solutions and continue to act as if it's a foregone conclusion that Social Security will fail.

*ETA: mhaze himself already pointed out that current benefits are paid out of current revenues (and I pointed out repeatedly that in most years SS revenues exceeded SS benefits paid out, so the trust fund is in good condition). When the 1935 law went into effect, the very first month that SS taxes were collected, that very same month benefits were paid out. It's not about getting back what you paid in. It's a taxpayer funded safety net for retirees (and the disabled).
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Oh, sure. Increase personal taxes to 250% of current levels.
Click to expand...
Nope. If my suggestion were followed, the actual rate would go downward, not up.

That'd get you to revenues = spending.
Click to expand...
You do realize that revenues still exceed payouts in Social Security, don't you? I know there's a meme going around that the program is insolvent, but it's false.

[ETA: I may have worded that incorrectly. Even though in 2010 revenues fell short of payouts, the cost of cashing in trust fund assets is lower than the interest they're earning, the trust fund is still growing. It's not until something like 2022 that we are expected to start shrinking the trust fund if we don't change policies. Linky.]

So spending goes down. And with it, many of the favorite entitlement spending programs vanish or are reduced.
Click to expand...
We're talking about Social Security, right? What are you talking about now?

We can both reduce total benefits paid out (by means testing) and increase revenues (by taxing more than just the first c. $100K of earnings) and the fund will remain solvent even as our demographics change and we have many more retirees than workers.

And FWIW, down the road, when we baby boomers are all long gone, assuming we haven't had another similar population boom, the demographics will change again, and the system will actually have too much money. That's a "problem" I propose leaving to our descendants to resolve.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
NO PROBLEM ACCORDING TO JOE! Just have some more "common sense" tax increases. Jack those personal taxes to 350% of current levels, that will handle the expected interest rate inc
Click to expand...
You're full of crap, mhaze.

You're arguing against a straw man of your own creation. Can you quote anything I have posted about jacking up personal taxes to 350% their current levels?

No you cannot. You're just lost in mhaze land.

ETA: You can't even decide on whether your lie about what I said is 250% or 350%! :p
 
Last edited:
Sorry for multiple replies to the same post, but mhaze added to the post after my first reply to it. [ETA: After my first 2 replies to it, in fact.]

mhaze said:
YES SIR! An average couple both working gross $100K taxed at $28K will just pay $74k, and after tax net goes from $72,000 to $26,000.
Click to expand...

No. If you bothered reading what I have posted repeatedly, if we change the Social Security tax to a tax on all earnings and not just the first ~$100K, the burden would actually go down for anyone earning $100K or less.

But please carry on with your attack on the strawman you have named after me. It's rather entertaining to watch.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're full of crap, mhaze.

You're arguing against a straw man of your own creation. Can you quote anything I have posted about jacking up personal taxes to 350% their current levels?

No you cannot. You're just lost in mhaze land.

ETA: You can't even decide on whether your lie about what I said is 250% or 350%! :p
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you made the claim that we could tax our way out of the imbalance between spending and revenue. Did you expect someone not to note the absurdity of that claim?

Now, I realize you may want to narrow the scope of the claim down to just the social security lockbox. It's like this, Joe. You are claiming that "there is no problem with funding the cafe in the big business building. The funding's in the business and the cafe is profitable".

But that business is Enron.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
So the system would collapse if people opted out of it.

That must be why it has not collapsed with "Christian Scientists" having opted out of it.

Wait....
Click to expand...
<numerous laughing dogs go here>

First off, I didn't know that Christian Scientists were able to opt out. If true, I have actually learned something from you!

But to the point, there are fewer CSists in the USA than there are Mennonites for crying out loud. :D They'd have a hard time bringing down the local convenience store much less the SS system.
 
varwoche said:
<numerous laughing dogs go here>

First off, I didn't know that Christian Scientists were able to opt out. If true, I have actually learned something from you!

But to the point, there are fewer CSists in the USA than there are Mennonites for crying out loud. :D They'd have a hard time bringing down the local convenience store much less the SS system.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can opt out now.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf

The ONLY QUESTION is whether, if people not of these religious sects chose to opt out, if they would do so in sufficient numbers to "bring down the system". Or whether there is a threat of such.

But frankly, since the SS moneys have been merged with the general fund, I don't even think this matters. If the moneys were separate, then it could be considered a different thing.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Yes, you can opt out now.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4029.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4361.pdf

The ONLY QUESTION is whether, if people not of these religious sects chose to opt out, if they would do so in sufficient numbers to "bring down the system". Or whether there is a threat of such.

But frankly, since the SS moneys have been merged with the general fund, I don't even think this matters. If the moneys were separate, then it could be considered a different thing.
Click to expand...
Sources, wow.
 
varwoche said:
<numerous laughing dogs go here>

First off, I didn't know that Christian Scientists were able to opt out. If true, I have actually learned something from you!

But to the point, there are fewer CSists in the USA than there are Mennonites for crying out loud. :D They'd have a hard time bringing down the local convenience store much less the SS system.
Click to expand...
You know, in thinking about this, I believe you DON'T HAVE A POINT.

Namely, it's notoriously hard to get out of a religious sect. Like to get excommunicated from the Catholics, etc. So join up with the Christian Scientists. File your IRS paperwork and get off the ship SS-Ponzi.

And then what??? You loose interest in the "faith", a while later stop attending "services". Maybe go twice a year.

Just asking questions....
 
mhaze said:
Unfortunately, you made the claim that we could tax our way out of the imbalance between spending and revenue. Did you expect someone not to note the absurdity of that claim?
Click to expand...

Still arguing against a straw man I see.

I will explain my suggestion for resolving the long-term solvency of the Social Security program for about the 10th time, and I predict you will still continue to ignore it and argue against a straw man position.

I am in favor of means testing to help control the projected increase in Social Security benefits paid out, and I'm in favor of taxing all earnings rather than merely the first ~$100K which would result in a lower SS tax rate.

This is not even remotely the claim that we should increase tax rates to 250% or 350% their current rates, and it is not even the claim that we can tax our way out of imbalances between spending and revenue.

But again, I'm sure you will continue to fulfill my prediction that you will ignore what I actually say and argue against a strawman position. It's just intellectual laziness on your part.


Now, I realize you may want to narrow the scope of the claim down to just the social security lockbox.
Click to expand...
You mean narrowing the scope to stay somewhere roughly near the topic of this thread--which, in case you forgot, was the claim that SS is a Ponzi Scheme.
 
mhaze said:
But frankly, since the SS moneys have been merged with the general fund, I don't even think this matters.
Click to expand...

What? They're not merged. The general fund has borrowed from the trust fund. Another way of saying that is the surplus general fund has been invested in very conservative interest bearing instruments of various sorts rather than merely placed in a checking account.

As of 2010, SS has had to start cashing in some of those instruments, but for another 10 years, doing so will cost less than the interest they're earning, so the trust fund is still increasing. If we do nothing at all, around that time, the fund will begin to be consumed, and in another 12 years or so after that, it would be gone. Then, at that point, the fact that revenues are lower than expenditures will meant he system is insolvent.

But of course, there's no reason to wait and do nothing. Avoiding this problem is not such a difficult thing. One thing it does require is that we stomp down the misinformation being promulgated--such as calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, claiming it is insolvent, claiming it is merged with the general treasury, etc.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Still arguing against a straw man I see.

I will explain my suggestion for resolving the long-term solvency of the Social Security program for about the 10th time, and I predict you will still continue to ignore it and argue against a straw man position.

I am in favor of means testing to help control the projected increase in Social Security benefits paid out, and I'm in favor of taxing all earnings rather than merely the first ~$100K which would result in a lower SS tax rate.

This is not even remotely the claim that we should increase tax rates to 250% or 350% their current rates, and it is not even the claim that we can tax our way out of imbalances between spending and revenue.

But again, I'm sure you will continue to fulfill my prediction that you will ignore what I actually say and argue against a strawman position. It's just intellectual laziness on your part.



You mean narrowing the scope to stay somewhere roughly near the topic of this thread--which, in case you forgot, was the claim that SS is a Ponzi Scheme.
Click to expand...
So you just want to explain how a division of the US Government can tax it's way out of an imbalance between spending and revenue, while ignoring, for the purpose of argument, that the US government cannot tax it's way out of said imbalance.

Thus, the profitable coffee shop in Enron, that has a rosy future, catering to the employees of Enron, adjusts it's menu prices as part of it's yearly profit and loss review.

I'm sure that coffee shop will do fine.

Wait.....
 
mhaze said:
So you just want to explain how a division of the US Government can tax it's [sic] way out of an imbalance between spending and revenue, while ignoring, for the purpose of argument, that the US government cannot tax it's [sic] way out of said imbalance.
Click to expand...
Right on cue, as I predicted you would ignore what I posted and continue to argue against a straw man.

Meanwhile, CNN's fact check of the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is pretty much in line with what I've been saying all along:

False. Perry is incorrect when he indicates that Social Security won't "be there" for today's younger workers.

<snip>
It is true that benefits to current Social Security recipients are paid for in part by new members of the workforce. But Social Security is not a fraudulent criminal enterprise designed only to benefit current participants in the program. It is a legitimate government program meant to serve both current and future generations of retirees.
Click to expand...

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/12/truth.squad.social.security/index.html
 
mhaze said:
Thus, the profitable coffee shop in Enron, that has a rosy future, catering to the employees of Enron, adjusts it's [sic] menu prices as part of it's [sic] yearly profit and loss review.

I'm sure that coffee shop will do fine.
Click to expand...
Do I need to bother with what's wrong with this analogy? Do you actually think it's an accurate reflection of Social Security and its relationship to the discretionary federal budget?

Do you think adjusting menu prices is an accurate characterization of the two things I've suggested to resolve the long term solvency of the Social Security trust fund? (In fact, since the analogy is so faulty, I can think of no way to make something in it that's analogous to those two suggestions. What Social Security does isn't remotely analogous to selling coffee and baked goods in a coffee shop.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom