The Biden Presidency - 2020

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This. Send it out. Let folks know that if they've made over X in 2020 it's gonna get taxed heavily as income, and if they've made under Y it's tax-free. It shouldn't be hard, but...politics.

Yeah I agree completely. This check would sit in my savings until tax time when I'd expect to pay it back, but it would help millions who are pretty damn desperate right now. Do it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mention of Trump's payroll tax relief and making it permanent.

I guess discussions will (has to) happen sooner or later next year with Stimulus III.

Everybody except Trump understands that reducing the money in the SS trust fund is bad policy and bad politics. McConnell wants nothing to do with raiding SS funds.

[RainMaker]

A real easy fix would be to allow student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy.

[Atocep]

The GOP will try to sell the direct payments as offsetting the payroll tax when you stsrt paying double.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

A real easy fix would be to allow student loans to be discharged through bankruptcy.

We also need to stop giving loans to people who will have little chance at paying it back.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We also need to stop giving loans to people who will have little chance at paying it back.

We also need to stop the mindset of college being a mandatory thing for any sort of career.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

We also need to stop the mindset of college being a mandatory thing for any sort of career.

I agree.

We should also build up "vocational/trade" schools.

[thesloppy]

I think a trade school definitely would have suited me better. I hated all the required-but-absolutely-unrelated subjects that were necessary to get an advanced degree.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We also need to stop giving loans to people who will have little chance at paying it back.

Student loan defaults are basically the same as other loans in that poor people default more often. There isn't a big issue with middle-class students choosing the "wrong" majors. The problem is that lots of discretionary income is lost to loan payments rather than going to more productive purchases.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

We also need to stop the mindset of college being a mandatory thing for any sort of career.

But who's going to stop companies or hiring managers from using that as a proxy for education? And how would you enforce that?

SI

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But who's going to stop companies or hiring managers from using that as a proxy for education? And how would you enforce that?

SI

Sadly, you probably don't, aside from a massive culture shift and a general repudiation of the current model of universities in general. Colleges have sold everyone on the idea that you need to blow what...50 grand? 100 grand?...for a degree that, in a large number of cases, leaves you entirely unprepared for the real world, and in a larger number of cases, leaves you entirely untrained for any sort of actual career.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mention of Trump's payroll tax relief and making it permanent.

I guess discussions will (has to) happen sooner or later next year with Stimulus III.

That won’t be permanent with Democrats in charge since it will bankrupt SS. I fucking hate it that they have not been taking it out. I have been saving it all knowing I will owe the government that money instead of the usual situation of us getting a decent sized check back.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We also need to stop giving loans to people who will have little chance at paying it back.

They should rename them to credit default swaps and the government will pay it back for them.

[Edward64]

Early voted today. A small line, in and out in 15 min. Picked up my "I secured my vote" sticker.

Didn't really research much this time, want Biden to get the Senate for at least 2 years to do his thing. I'll be more diligent in reviewing stance, policies etc. in 2022. Glad the voting is over for me until then, ready to move on with Trump out of office even if the GOP retain the Senate.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Galaril

That won’t be permanent with Democrats in charge since it will bankrupt SS. I fucking hate it that they have not been taking it out. I have been saving it all knowing I will owe the government that money instead of the usual situation of us getting a decent sized check back.

I really don't see it bankrupting SS, right now we are looking at 75% payout by 203x or so. The SS fix (extending the solvency) can be done with a combination of removing the limit, increase tax rate, raise retirement age, changing how COLA is calculated and investing portions in the stock market.

In the early 2000's, Bush was pushing for investing a portion in stock market (or letting folks do it themselves). 9-11 pushed that (and guest worker program reform) to the wayside unfortunately. Since 2000, the market has averaged about 8% return and that definitely would have helped. Definitely don't invest all of it in the stock market though but some would be good.

I read somewhere the cost for payroll tax holiday is like $330B. My company hasn't been doing it but it would be nice to get a "bonus" if/when it becomes permanent.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

increase tax rate.

Which tax rate are you talking about? Since payroll taxes are the way we fund Social Security.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which tax rate are you talking about? Since payroll taxes are the way we fund Social Security.

Raise the social security payroll tax rate, and/or also raise or eliminate the ceiling above $118.5K.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Raise the social security payroll tax rate, and/or also raise or eliminate the ceiling above $118.5K.

Don't you see the disconnect of you saying that abolishing the payroll tax permanently won't bankrupt SS while you are saying raise the payroll tax?

[NobodyHere]

Why can't I just opt out of SS?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Why can't I just opt out of SS?

Because almost 100 years ago, as a society, we decided having a bunch of poor old people was really bad for a developed country. And, that if people were left to their own choices, as a society, we'd still have to pay for their welfare in some way or another (health costs, increased crime, moral problems of - I dunno - euthanizing the elderly poor) so that decision was not left up to the individual.

Cute thing - some state workers are left out of social security. Others, too:
8 Types of Americans Who Aren't Eligible to Get Social Security

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Why can't I just opt out of SS?

Some teachers in some states don't have SS taken out. Think it's because they have a teacher pension fund they pay into in lieu of. So there is some precedence.

I think it's because people can't be trusted to "save" so SS is enforced savings. The common consensus is people get more out of SS than they pay into and SS is adjusted for inflation.

So I kinda like it the way it is right now. We just need more people (or higher rate) paying into it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Don't you see the disconnect of you saying that abolishing the payroll tax permanently won't bankrupt SS while you are saying raise the payroll tax?

Uh no. I didn't say "abolishing the payroll tax permanently won't bankrupt SS". I was referring to the Trump's executive order on payroll tax relief, a one time thing.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Uh no. I didn't say "abolishing the payroll tax permanently won't bankrupt SS". I was referring to the Trump's executive order on payroll tax relief, a one time thing.

You responded "I really don't see it bankrupting SS" to someone who said:

Originally Posted by Galaril

That won’t be permanent with Democrats in charge since it will bankrupt SS.

Who responded to your post saying:

Originally Posted by Edward64

No mention of Trump's payroll tax relief and making it permanent.

Emphasis added.

I guess it could have been that you misread Galaril's post, but it was super confusing.

[Edward64]

I don't understand?

Are you saying you think I was saying remove the Payroll taxes for Social Security on our payroll checks permanently?

I was referring to making Trump's payroll tax relief (per his executive order) permanent, a one time deal.

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't understand?

Are you saying you think I was saying remove the Payroll taxes for Social Security on our payroll checks permanently?

I was referring to making Trump's payroll tax relief (per his executive order) permanent, a one time deal.

I'm not sure where the confusion is.

Because your two statements seem to be the same thing? Trump's executive order defers payroll tax until January - saying it should be permanent (as the President says) implies that SS payroll taxes should be eliminated. Do you rather mean that the deferred payroll tax should be written off or forgiven?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Sadly, you probably don't, aside from a massive culture shift and a general repudiation of the current model of universities in general. Colleges have sold everyone on the idea that you need to blow what...50 grand? 100 grand?...for a degree that, in a large number of cases, leaves you entirely unprepared for the real world, and in a larger number of cases, leaves you entirely untrained for any sort of actual career.

And yet loads of stats point to the value of college. Lower unemployment, better pay, more demand. Economic downturns have less impact on college grads. It isn't perfect, but the numbers generally hold true.

[Brian Swartz]

That's too broad of a brush to really tell us anything significant though. I don't think anybody would dispute that there are a number of college-educated people who did get valuable education and preparation for the work force, and certainly there's a self-selecting property at work in that the highest achievers will tend to be more concentrated in that group. I'm not aware of any studies on this, but perhaps you can educate me; what I'd be more interested in is how those who graduated but couldn't get work in the field in which they studied fared, compared to if they tried to get into one of the vocations that are constantly short of qualified workers. I.e, for sure college is very valuable for some people, but I would say the facts I'm aware of indicate it's not valuable for a large group of others who still go.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Raise the social security payroll tax rate, and/or also raise or eliminate the ceiling above $118.5K.

Eliminating the ceiling is the best option. Also applying the tax to capital gains. Heck, with both those done you could probably even reduce the rate and still come out ahead.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

That's too broad of a brush to really tell us anything significant though. I don't think anybody would dispute that there are a number of college-educated people who did get valuable education and preparation for the work force, and certainly there's a self-selecting property at work in that the highest achievers will tend to be more concentrated in that group. I'm not aware of any studies on this, but perhaps you can educate me; what I'd be more interested in is how those who graduated but couldn't get work in the field in which they studied fared, compared to if they tried to get into one of the vocations that are constantly short of qualified workers. I.e, for sure college is very valuable for some people, but I would say the facts I'm aware of indicate it's not valuable for a large group of others who still go.

I think that's picking and choosing where your data is though. Sure, how many Art History majors (hell Psych majors) are out there working in their fields (I'm not and I have a Sociology degree too), and if it's low, could they have done better with a vocation. I don't think that question hits the mark, and I think we know the answer, but it won't necessarily tell us what we really want to know. We want to know how people with degrees do in general versus vocations across the board. Have they advanced further in their chosen career path? Are more managers college educated than not? Are they more successful? I am sure that there are some college educated people working in vocational fields, but there's probably only a few non-college educated people working in higher level fields that simply demand that. Where are there more job opportunities? If the vocational fields were flooded with people working would they still be able to make ends meet? Or are we seeing a big push right now, because those fields are short staffed at the moment, and demand for their services is higher than they can supply? I just think that when you look at the bigger picture of overall job demand, that the benefits of a college education simply open more doors across the board. Whether or not someone takes advantage of that, shouldn't really be on the degree itself.

[sterlingice]

So long as employers continue to use it as a placeholder for education and socioeconomic status, it will have a ton of value. So many jobs require college degrees, even if the education has nothing to do with the job.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Raise the social security payroll tax rate, and/or also raise or eliminate the ceiling above $118.5K.

Maybe I'm thinking of a different tax, but I think that ceiling will be $142K next year.

[PilotMan]

Take aviation as one glaring example. Studies show that overall job performance, training expense and professionalism are higher across the board for college educated pilots. They even go further and say that if you graduated in four years that those numbers are even better. Most airlines with very competitive hiring require college degrees (it doesn't matter what in), and just like I said, you will go further in your career with one, than without, but you aren't going to be kept from doing that if that's what you want to do, but it will be harder to get, and it there is data that backs up their reasoning.

[albionmoonlight]

What I don't get about raising the rate is that you are going to have to raise the benefits for high earners, too, so it won't be saving the system as much money as people think.

[albionmoonlight]

Personally, I'd eliminate the payroll tax entirely and increase income tax to make up for it.

And get rid of the fiction of a "trust fund." The government can pay benefits or not pay benefits. That' up to the politicians. But money is fungible, so the idea that we are going to "run out" of SS money if some arbitrary "trust fund" is depleted is silly.

[albionmoonlight]

double dola:

And, yeah, as much as I didn't like 4 years of Trump, I can't say that I'm looking forward to 4 years of having to pretend that the GOP cares about the deficit whenever Biden proposes doing anything.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Maybe I'm thinking of a different tax, but I think that ceiling will be $142K next year.

Hah hah, nope you are right.

It's been a while since I've been hands-on payroll configurator. I'm a PM and don't get into those details anymore!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Because your two statements seem to be the same thing? Trump's executive order defers payroll tax until January - saying it should be permanent (as the President says) implies that SS payroll taxes should be eliminated. Do you rather mean that the deferred payroll tax should be written off or forgiven?

I am saying I am okay with that Trump's one-time tax deferral/holiday be made permanent, and that one-time deferral/holiday being made permanent will not bankrupt SS.

I am not saying that all future payroll SS tax be forever eliminated. That will obviously bankrupt SS (unless there is another tax in its place).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

What I don't get about raising the rate is that you are going to have to raise the benefits for high earners, too, so it won't be saving the system as much money as people think.

I don't see that as a must.

The max SS that someone can get is approx $36K in today's dollars at regular retirement age. IMO that is plenty for the high earners. If they don't have non-SS savings, it's on them.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I think that's picking and choosing where your data is though. Sure, how many Art History majors (hell Psych majors) are out there working in their fields (I'm not and I have a Sociology degree too), and if it's low, could they have done better with a vocation. I don't think that question hits the mark, and I think we know the answer, but it won't necessarily tell us what we really want to know. We want to know how people with degrees do in general versus vocations across the board. Have they advanced further in their chosen career path? Are more managers college educated than not? Are they more successful? I am sure that there are some college educated people working in vocational fields, but there's probably only a few non-college educated people working in higher level fields that simply demand that. Where are there more job opportunities? If the vocational fields were flooded with people working would they still be able to make ends meet? Or are we seeing a big push right now, because those fields are short staffed at the moment, and demand for their services is higher than they can supply? I just think that when you look at the bigger picture of overall job demand, that the benefits of a college education simply open more doors across the board. Whether or not someone takes advantage of that, shouldn't really be on the degree itself.

Maybe there are some studies from Europe, they are bigger on trade schools than the US.

[thesloppy]

It seems like maybe a way to make trade schools part of the junior/community college system, rather than an alternative, would make it easier for folks to transition into/out of either.

[GrantDawg]

I think people should consider vocational schools way more than they do. 18 months go two years can get you on a great career path. I do get why many jobs require a college degree, though. It shows an education and an ability to accomplish something.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[bhlloy]

What I am really unsure of now though is what are legit vocational schools and what are basically just scammers, and how we sort that out moving forward.

I mean the likes of UTI/Motorcycle Institute/mycomputercareer.com that advertise 24/7 on c list TV channels surely can’t be legit, so are we just swapping one problem for another?

[JPhillips]

For-profit schools have a much higher student loan default rate.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

What I am really unsure of now though is what are legit vocational schools and what are basically just scammers, and how we sort that out moving forward.

I mean the likes of UTI/Motorcycle Institute/mycomputercareer.com that advertise 24/7 on c list TV channels surely can’t be legit, so are we just swapping one problem for another?

Good point.

And once the acceptance rate increases, will there be tuition inflation like regular 4 year colleges? Probably yes.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We want to know how people with degrees do in general versus vocations across the board.

We don't even really agree on this point, which is probably quite fundamental. I don't think the answer to this is particularly useful, as it compares a bunch of different groups that there's not much value in comparing.

[sterlingice]

This would be from the perspective of prospective parent or kid: "Should I or shouldn't I get a college degree?" And so long as the outcomes are better if you go - not universally but on average - it will continue to be desirable.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Legit vocational schools are usually public run. Tech schools and the like offer programs that are supported by local industries to train people in needed skills. Many local Tech schools in Atlanta are offering courses related to movie/TV production. High paying jobs that do not require college degrees. They are generally very inexpensive programs.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

so long as the outcomes are better if you go - not universally but on average - it will continue to be desirable.

To me this is the key. We have to stop looking at things like this, at people in general across a wide range of policy issues, but also here, as one-size-fits-all. It doesn't. A lot of people absolutely should go to college. A lot of others shouldn't. We need to get way better at wisely discerning between the two. Not just for the sake of the people going or not going, but for society as a whole. We need more people qualified and trained in jobs for which college degrees are useless - the whole blue-collar, Mike Rowe thing.

[JPhillips]

One of the downsides to a tech program is that if you want to change careers or if advances in technology eliminate your job you may not have anything to fall back on. A good college education will give you transferable skills.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To me this is the key. We have to stop looking at things like this, at people in general across a wide range of policy issues, but also here, as one-size-fits-all. It doesn't. A lot of people absolutely should go to college. A lot of others shouldn't. We need to get way better at wisely discerning between the two. Not just for the sake of the people going or not going, but for society as a whole. We need more people qualified and trained in jobs for which college degrees are useless - the whole blue-collar, Mike Rowe thing.

This is a top down methodology like you'd get in a game like RimWorld where you can dictate the best outcome for the individual. I don't see that as being viable at all unless you're into China/Russia-like opportunities for kids. The reality is that it's a bottom up evaluation where the individual is maximizing what they see as their best chances. If, like SI said, getting a degree will be the best overall option, then the child, or parent is going to push for that option. Too much individual freedom and choice and we all min/max our chances. You're suggesting a plan where we funnel people into their best bets for themselves and society, which isn't compatible with our current culture in the US. IMO of course. Maybe that's not what you mean, but that's how I'm hearing it.