Newt's mind-boggling tax plan

BenBurch said:
It's all those sub-standard private schools the Republicans send their children to.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there are a number of Democrats who haven't helped the situation much, either. I'm all for raising the retirement age on Social Security, but too many Democrats don't even want to consider it. That's stupid, in my view.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
What's with the Republican near universal obsession with cutting taxes? Paying tax seems to be one of the more responsible things you do in life, which plays well with the traditional Republican platform of responsibility.
Click to expand...

Supply side religion keeps them thinking that cutting taxes to the wealthy creates jobs and improves the economy. It's the economists' alchemy.
 
MattusMaximus said:
To be fair, there are a number of Democrats who haven't helped the situation much, either. I'm all for raising the retirement age on Social Security, but too many Democrats don't even want to consider it. That's stupid, in my view.
Click to expand...

I don't even think that it's needed. If we removed the max cap on the FICA, we'd be solvent.
 
BenBurch said:
Especially as people now LIVE longer.
Click to expand...

But for people in physically demanding professions raising the retirement age can be brutal. Telling an old roofer with a bad back that he has to keep working since lawyers are living longer seems a bit silly.
 
jj said:
They want these cuts so that "we have to eliminate all social programs because we can't afford them".

That really is exactly what it's all about, a ploy to eliminate all support for people in crisis, bad health, etc, on a faux basis of budget.
Click to expand...
Precisely what's happening in the UK.
 
Random said:
But for people in physically demanding professions raising the retirement age can be brutal. Telling an old roofer with a bad back that he has to keep working since lawyers are living longer seems a bit silly.
Click to expand...

This raises the issue I always like to bring up if we're discussing solving the long-term SS solvency problem through benefit cuts of any kind: means testing.

I think raising the tax ceiling would solve the problem.

However, if we're going to discuss cutting benefits, we should discuss means testing. There's no need to reduce benefits to people who really need them--especially when we could drastically reduce (or eliminate) benefits to people who don't need them.

[ETA: In other words, if we're going to cut benefits, there's no need to cut benefits flat across the board.]

I think the farther we get from policies that make SS seem like an involuntary IRA and more to policies that make SS into an actual safety net, the better.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think the farther we get from policies that make SS seem like an involuntary IRA and more to policies that make SS into an actual safety net, the better.
Click to expand...

I have no idea whether this idea is useful and possible or not. All I know is as soon as discussion about it starts, the right-wing pundits will scream "socialism" until the Republicans step away from the talks.
 
Ladewig said:
I have no idea whether this idea is useful and possible or not. All I know is as soon as discussion about it starts, the right-wing pundits will scream "socialism" until the Republicans step away from the talks.
Click to expand...
Yeah. For some reason, they think Congress doesn't have the authority to modify Social Security (even relatively slightly) to guarantee its long-term solvency, but they do think they have the authority to sabotage it so that it goes away (or actually becomes simply a government-administered IRA of some sort).
 
Random said:
But for people in physically demanding professions raising the retirement age can be brutal. Telling an old roofer with a bad back that he has to keep working since lawyers are living longer seems a bit silly.
Click to expand...

Yep, but the actuarial reality has changed.

It has always been the case that some people become disabled and are unable to work all the way to retirement age, so I would expect that we need to deal with that as a disability case.
 
Ladewig said:
I have no idea whether this idea is useful and possible or not. All I know is as soon as discussion about it starts, the right-wing pundits will scream "socialism" until the Republicans step away from the talks.
Click to expand...

And we tell the people that the GOP are the only reason they will be eating cat food in retirement and elect enough Democrats to push it though.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This raises the issue I always like to bring up if we're discussing solving the long-term SS solvency problem through benefit cuts of any kind: means testing.

I think raising the tax ceiling would solve the problem.

However, if we're going to discuss cutting benefits, we should discuss means testing. There's no need to reduce benefits to people who really need them--especially when we could drastically reduce (or eliminate) benefits to people who don't need them.

[ETA: In other words, if we're going to cut benefits, there's no need to cut benefits flat across the board.]

I think the farther we get from policies that make SS seem like an involuntary IRA and more to policies that make SS into an actual safety net, the better.
Click to expand...

If we lived in a rational political environment, I would agree with you. But in the world of US politics, means testing would quickly become a debate about worthy/unworthy people and Social Security would become “just another welfare program”. Imagine the whole “get a job” argument for unemployment insurance and change it to “get a 401k”.

Besides, there are not that many people who would fall under most people’s definition of “don’t need Social Security”, so the only way to save real money is to lower standards for “unworthiness”.
 
Random said:
...

Besides, there are not that many people who would fall under most people’s definition of “don’t need Social Security”, so the only way to save real money is to lower standards for “unworthiness”.
Click to expand...

A person with a retirement income of $100K/yr does not need the full SS benefit, and somebody who makes twice that needs none of it. They would still get Medicare, so part of the need for money will still be dealt with.

Yes, it is a small percentage of the populace, but it is also only a small percentage we need to change to keep the fund solvent.
 
BenBurch said:
A person with a retirement income of $100K/yr does not need the full SS benefit, and somebody who makes twice that needs none of it. They would still get Medicare, so part of the need for money will still be dealt with.

Yes, it is a small percentage of the populace, but it is also only a small percentage we need to change to keep the fund solvent.
Click to expand...

Removing the income cap takes care of the problem just as effectively, and doesn’t give the Social Security destruction squad another avenue of attack (lowering the means testing limits, or not letting them keep pace with inflation). Always remember that the opponents of Social Security will never stop until they bring the program down, and that we must avoid giving them new levers to pull in the future.
 
Random said:
Removing the income cap takes care of the problem just as effectively, and doesn’t give the Social Security destruction squad another avenue of attack (lowering the means testing limits, or not letting them keep pace with inflation). Always remember that the opponents of Social Security will never stop until they bring the program down, and that we must avoid giving them new levers to pull in the future.
Click to expand...

Good points all.
 
BenBurch said:
And we tell the people that the GOP are the only reason they will be eating cat food in retirement and elect enough Democrats to push it though.
Click to expand...

Personally, I am very disappointed in both sides of the aisle. I think two is too small a number for determining the number of of political parties necessary for a healthy democratic republic.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
This raises the issue I always like to bring up if we're discussing solving the long-term SS solvency problem through benefit cuts of any kind: means testing.

I think raising the tax ceiling would solve the problem.

However, if we're going to discuss cutting benefits, we should discuss means testing. There's no need to reduce benefits to people who really need them--especially when we could drastically reduce (or eliminate) benefits to people who don't need them.

[ETA: In other words, if we're going to cut benefits, there's no need to cut benefits flat across the board.]

I think the farther we get from policies that make SS seem like an involuntary IRA and more to policies that make SS into an actual safety net, the better.
Click to expand...

I am sure that most people view it as a system that they have been paying into all of their life that is a forced retirement savings account.
How much you recieve is dependent upon how much you have earned. If you have never earned wages or payed any social security tax you generally do not receive any payments (there are exceptions). Do you think it is ok for people who have been paying in all of their life to now not receive social security because they do not "need" it.

The reason there is a cap on payments is because how much you recieve is capped also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom