Pol-Fixing Social Security

st.cronin · 02-01-2006, 04:58 PM

It seems incredibly obvious to me that Social Security does NOT need a major overhaul, a revolution, a radical approach - it just needs two minor tweaks to make it solvent for the forseeable future.

1. Raise the retirement age 1 year.

2. Make all income taxable. (I forget what the cap is right now - I think $100,000)

Why couldn't this compromise work?

timmynausea · 02-01-2006, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It seems incredibly obvious to me that Social Security does NOT need a major overhaul, a revolution, a radical approach - it just needs two minor tweaks to make it solvent for the forseeable future.

1. Raise the retirement age 1 year.

2. Make all income taxable. (I forget what the cap is right now - I think $100,000)

Why couldn't this compromise work?

I agree. I think the cap on payroll taxes and/or self-employment taxes (basically the same thing for different employment situations) is at $87,000.

cartman · 02-01-2006, 05:39 PM

No sane reason at all why this wouldn't work.

But the current Congress will not raise taxes at all, especially one that would target the rich. Also, GWB stated that he was going to use the political capital he earned after the 2004 election to push for his SS overhaul.

But the biggest underfunded program right now is Medicare. With the changes that were passed last year, the figures show it to have a projected shortfall of 2 to 3 times that of Social Security.

oliegirl · 02-01-2006, 06:05 PM

But which people (age) get stuck working the extra year? Where is the cutoff? People who are 65 now have to work another year? 60? People would probably just end up taking early retirement and figuring even with the penalty, it'd be worth it not to have to work that extra year and then we are in the same boat we are in now.

Mustang · 02-01-2006, 06:07 PM

I think we should just have all the Indian Casinos control SS..

Thats where all my Mom's social security money went anyways.

Galaxy · 02-01-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang

I think we should just have all the Indian Casinos control SS..

Thats where all my Mom's social security money went anyways.

?

PilotMan · 02-01-2006, 06:40 PM

Your kidding right? You want to tax all income taxable? Does that mean that you want to take away all exceptions, credits, incentives too? Does that mean that you are willing to hinder the ability of businesses to operate by preventing their growth by taxing them more than they already are. That is precisely part of the problem in aviation. The govt is taxing the hell out of them and making it very hard to get the money that they need to keep the company going strong. Profit money that is not reinvested will collapse a business. You would rather that money go to the govt for SS? That seems like the most socialist, and backward thinking proposition that I have heard for a long time.

It will not work like that here. It is not the solution for a free market economy. It is only the solution for a socialist state where the govt owns everything and decides what is best for its people, instead of the people deciding for themselves.

timmynausea · 02-01-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Your kidding right? You want to tax all income taxable? Does that mean that you want to take away all exceptions, credits, incentives too? Does that mean that you are willing to hinder the ability of businesses to operate by preventing their growth by taxing them more than they already are. That is precisely part of the problem in aviation. The govt is taxing the hell out of them and making it very hard to get the money that they need to keep the company going strong. Profit money that is not reinvested will collapse a business. You would rather that money go to the govt for SS? That seems like the most socialist, and backward thinking proposition that I have heard for a long time.

It will not work like that here. It is not the solution for a free market economy. It is only the solution for a socialist state where the govt owns everything and decides what is best for its people, instead of the people deciding for themselves.

Wow. Most people do pay payroll taxes on all their income. You have to pay it for the first $87,000 you make. We are merely asking for a "flat" payroll tax. How is that socialist?

st.cronin · 02-01-2006, 06:57 PM

Yeah, I'm not talking about anything but the payroll tax, which businesses don't pay, employees do. Right now the cutoff is 87K (per timmynausea) and I think all investment income is exempt. Even just raising it to 150K would make a massive difference, and would affect businesses not at all. If you made all income taxable, and raised the retirement age 1 year (or 3/4 a year, or some number - it's simply unreasonable to not raise it at all), that would actually allow us to significantly increase the benefits as well. (I'm not suggesting that we do this - I'm just putting it out there as a possible political carrot.)

Buccaneer · 02-01-2006, 07:00 PM

Fix what is not broken?

sterlingice · 02-01-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang

I think we should just have all the Indian Casinos control SS..

Jack Abramoff, is that you?

SI

Crapshoot · 02-01-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yeah, I'm not talking about anything but the payroll tax, which businesses don't pay, employees do.

That's wrong - you pay 6.25%, the company pays 6.25% as well - all towards Social Security.

duckman · 02-01-2006, 07:10 PM

Lets start with the federal government not using the SS funds in the general budget. If that money was put back like it was supposed to, we wouldn't even being having this discussion.

John Galt · 02-01-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Your kidding right? You want to tax all income taxable? Does that mean that you want to take away all exceptions, credits, incentives too? Does that mean that you are willing to hinder the ability of businesses to operate by preventing their growth by taxing them more than they already are. That is precisely part of the problem in aviation. The govt is taxing the hell out of them and making it very hard to get the money that they need to keep the company going strong. Profit money that is not reinvested will collapse a business. You would rather that money go to the govt for SS? That seems like the most socialist, and backward thinking proposition that I have heard for a long time.

It will not work like that here. It is not the solution for a free market economy. It is only the solution for a socialist state where the govt owns everything and decides what is best for its people, instead of the people deciding for themselves.

Wow. Total non-sequitur.

st.cronin · 02-01-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

That's wrong - you pay 6.25%, the company pays 6.25% as well - all towards Social Security.

I didn't know that. How does that work for the self-employed?

Ben E Lou · 02-01-2006, 07:19 PM

Who's hairbrained idea was it in the first place that the government should take care of our retirement for us???

Buccaneer · 02-01-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Who's hairbrained idea was it in the first place that the federal government should take care of and be involved in every single aspect of our lives???

Enhanced it for ya.

sterlingice · 02-01-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Who's hairbrained idea was it in the first place that the government should take care of our retirement for us???

Get him. Beat up the guy in the wheelchair!

SI

Ben E Lou · 02-01-2006, 07:30 PM

Nice.

duckman · 02-01-2006, 07:31 PM

I could take him.

Grammaticus · 02-01-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It seems incredibly obvious to me that Social Security does NOT need a major overhaul, a revolution, a radical approach - it just needs two minor tweaks to make it solvent for the forseeable future.

1. Raise the retirement age 1 year.

2. Make all income taxable. (I forget what the cap is right now - I think $100,000)

Why couldn't this compromise work?

Because it is taking money from people who earned it and giving the money to people who did not earn it, bad concept period. This type of behavior causes overall growth to slow.

Buccaneer · 02-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Two minor tweaks:

1. We learn to be more sacrificial and get our focus away from our self-centered, materialistic-driven lifestyle and actually take care of our parents and loved ones ourselves in their retirements.

2. We support those calling for less taxation, less waste of our federal govt and focusing more of our resources in supporting our community, churches and local enterprises in caring for others.

clintl · 02-01-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I didn't know that. How does that work for the self-employed?

The self-employed pay both the employee and employer share. It's called the Self-Employment Tax on the 1040.

PilotMan · 02-01-2006, 09:20 PM

Alright, I missunderstood what you were proposing. Individual fiscal responsibility coupled with fiscal responsibiliy from the govt and a radical reshaping of the tax code to a simpler system that would cut the size of the IRS bureaucracy down would be a start.

JPhillips · 02-01-2006, 09:32 PM

Yep. That would fix it. The problem is that Bush isn't looking to fix SS, he's looking to replace it with a defined contribution plan. There is no interest in achieving the fix you suggest even though I think it would get plenty of support from Dems, at least enough to get it passed.

Social Security has been the most successful program in the history of the U.S. government. Its kept generations of elderly out of abject poverty and along with a number of laws passed in the thirties its kept the U.S. and the world out of a serious depression for over sixty years. It works and it won't cost much to keep it working for another fifty years.

Save Social Security!!!

st.cronin · 02-01-2006, 09:35 PM

I wasn't neccesarily thinking in terms of grand philosophy here - I'm thinking in terms of pragmatic solutions that fit our current worldview. I can't argue with those who say that individuals should take charge of their own retirement, that fewer taxes make for a stronger economy, etc. However, if you take as a given that government should provide a safety net for the retired, and that the current plan is projected to be in the red in our lifetime, I think it's entirely sensible that we think in terms of compromise. I don't see that either tweak I suggested is either unfair, or would harm the economy.

timmynausea · 02-01-2006, 10:18 PM

"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.

Their number is neglible and they are stupid." - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954

Jesse_Ewiak · 02-01-2006, 10:35 PM

Eisenhower = Best GOP President of the 20th or 21st Century except for maybe TR.

MrBigglesworth · 02-02-2006, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Individual fiscal responsibility coupled with fiscal responsibiliy from the govt and a radical reshaping of the tax code to a simpler system that would cut the size of the IRS bureaucracy down would be a start.

In theoretical world, that's great, but back in the real world there is no fiscal responsibility, even making the right decisions can leave your broke, and the radical reshaping of the tax code goes against your first post where you scoffed at making all revenue taxable. And the IRS may be the only government agency that makes more money the more that they are funded.

MrBigglesworth · 02-02-2006, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I wasn't neccesarily thinking in terms of grand philosophy here - I'm thinking in terms of pragmatic solutions that fit our current worldview. I can't argue with those who say that individuals should take charge of their own retirement, that fewer taxes make for a stronger economy, etc. However, if you take as a given that government should provide a safety net for the retired, and that the current plan is projected to be in the red in our lifetime, I think it's entirely sensible that we think in terms of compromise. I don't see that either tweak I suggested is either unfair, or would harm the economy.

Here is the thing though, the people that are in charge now say that the money in the SS trust fund is nothing but worthless IOUs. So what sense does it make to raise taxes or increase the retirement age now while SS is running in the black, at least while the current group of politicians are in charge?

sterlingice · 02-02-2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

2. We support those calling for less taxation, less waste of our federal govt and focusing more of our resources in supporting our community, churches and local enterprises in caring for others.

Oh, you say that about everything

SI

George · 02-02-2006, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Who's hairbrained idea was it in the first place that the government should take care of our retirement for us???

Also, I thought "pyramid schemes" were illegal.

JonInMiddleGA · 02-02-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckman

I could take him.

Somebody should have.

02-01-2006, 05:39 PM	#3
cartman Death Herald Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas	No sane reason at all why this wouldn't work. But the current Congress will not raise taxes at all, especially one that would target the rich. Also, GWB stated that he was going to use the political capital he earned after the 2004 election to push for his SS overhaul. But the biggest underfunded program right now is Medicare. With the changes that were passed last year, the figures show it to have a projected shortfall of 2 to 3 times that of Social Security. __________________ Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint

02-01-2006, 06:07 PM	#5
Mustang Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Wisconsin	I think we should just have all the Indian Casinos control SS.. Thats where all my Mom's social security money went anyways. __________________ You, you will regret what you have done this day. I will make you regret ever being born. Your going to wish you never left your mothers womb, where it was warm and safe... and wet. i am going to show you pain you never knew existed, you are going to see a whole new spectrum of pain, like a Rainboooow. But! This rainbow is not just like any other rainbow, its...

02-01-2006, 06:40 PM	#7
PilotMan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Seven miles up	Your kidding right? You want to tax all income taxable? Does that mean that you want to take away all exceptions, credits, incentives too? Does that mean that you are willing to hinder the ability of businesses to operate by preventing their growth by taxing them more than they already are. That is precisely part of the problem in aviation. The govt is taxing the hell out of them and making it very hard to get the money that they need to keep the company going strong. Profit money that is not reinvested will collapse a business. You would rather that money go to the govt for SS? That seems like the most socialist, and backward thinking proposition that I have heard for a long time. It will not work like that here. It is not the solution for a free market economy. It is only the solution for a socialist state where the govt owns everything and decides what is best for its people, instead of the people deciding for themselves. __________________ He's just like if Snow White was competitive, horny, and capable of beating the shit out of anyone that called her Pops. Like Steam? Join the FOFC Steam group here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/FOFConSteam

02-01-2006, 06:57 PM	#9
st.cronin General Manager Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Mexico	Yeah, I'm not talking about anything but the payroll tax, which businesses don't pay, employees do. Right now the cutoff is 87K (per timmynausea) and I think all investment income is exempt. Even just raising it to 150K would make a massive difference, and would affect businesses not at all. If you made all income taxable, and raised the retirement age 1 year (or 3/4 a year, or some number - it's simply unreasonable to not raise it at all), that would actually allow us to significantly increase the benefits as well. (I'm not suggesting that we do this - I'm just putting it out there as a possible political carrot.) __________________ co-commish: bb-bbcf.net knives out

02-01-2006, 07:19 PM	#16
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Who's hairbrained idea was it in the first place that the government should take care of our retirement for us??? __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

02-01-2006, 07:00 PM	#10
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	Fix what is not broken?

02-01-2006, 07:30 PM	#19
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Nice. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

02-01-2006, 07:55 PM	#22
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	Two minor tweaks: 1. We learn to be more sacrificial and get our focus away from our self-centered, materialistic-driven lifestyle and actually take care of our parents and loved ones ourselves in their retirements. 2. We support those calling for less taxation, less waste of our federal govt and focusing more of our resources in supporting our community, churches and local enterprises in caring for others.

02-01-2006, 09:20 PM	#24
PilotMan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Seven miles up	Alright, I missunderstood what you were proposing. Individual fiscal responsibility coupled with fiscal responsibiliy from the govt and a radical reshaping of the tax code to a simpler system that would cut the size of the IRS bureaucracy down would be a start. __________________ He's just like if Snow White was competitive, horny, and capable of beating the shit out of anyone that called her Pops. Like Steam? Join the FOFC Steam group here: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/FOFConSteam

02-01-2006, 09:32 PM	#25
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Yep. That would fix it. The problem is that Bush isn't looking to fix SS, he's looking to replace it with a defined contribution plan. There is no interest in achieving the fix you suggest even though I think it would get plenty of support from Dems, at least enough to get it passed. Social Security has been the most successful program in the history of the U.S. government. Its kept generations of elderly out of abject poverty and along with a number of laws passed in the thirties its kept the U.S. and the world out of a serious depression for over sixty years. It works and it won't cost much to keep it working for another fifty years. Save Social Security!!! __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

02-01-2006, 09:35 PM	#26
st.cronin General Manager Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Mexico	I wasn't neccesarily thinking in terms of grand philosophy here - I'm thinking in terms of pragmatic solutions that fit our current worldview. I can't argue with those who say that individuals should take charge of their own retirement, that fewer taxes make for a stronger economy, etc. However, if you take as a given that government should provide a safety net for the retired, and that the current plan is projected to be in the red in our lifetime, I think it's entirely sensible that we think in terms of compromise. I don't see that either tweak I suggested is either unfair, or would harm the economy. __________________ co-commish: bb-bbcf.net knives out

02-01-2006, 10:18 PM	#27
timmynausea College Starter Join Date: Dec 2002	"Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is neglible and they are stupid." - Dwight Eisenhower, November 8, 1954

02-01-2006, 10:35 PM	#28
Jesse_Ewiak Banned Join Date: Apr 2004	Eisenhower = Best GOP President of the 20th or 21st Century except for maybe TR.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)