Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

mattchuck2 wrote

And, in any case, I started this thread to try to come up with some solutions to the problems that people have with the government when they tell pollsters that they are "angry".

People are angry because they did not get a SS COLA increase last year.  I propose an idea to reduce the burden on the SS system so more people can get enhanced benefits for longer periods of time.  Thanks...You did a great job of crapping all over it.  

Sure, I get it... "well off" people don't count.  We should be marginalized because our ideas can only be self-serving.  As I said, we have no soul.

Not sure why we're talking anymore.

At this point, you're arguing for a revenue neutral (or revenue gaining) program that complicates the tax code and seems to add more loopholes that rich could exploit (even if you complicate the tax code more by adding income brackets to this scheme).

What is the incentive for anyone to implement or participate in this program? If individuals are getting less than they would from social security, there's no benefit for individuals to take your plan. If the government is handing out more than they would hand out in social security benefits, there is no benefit for the government to take your plan. If it's a bet that you're making (the benefits from your plan will exceed the benefits you'd get from social security if you live x number of years), then it's likely that the government still wouldn't agree to it.

I'm just not seeing why this plan is needed and I'm definitely not seeing why this is a major reform that you'd push for.

Well if they are going to get 2200 per month and now you are telling them there SSI taxes are no longer capped at 118k but you are still only going to get 2200 per month.   He is getting no benefit.  How can you not see that?  So if you make 218k you are going to pay an extra 12k in taxes and get the same 2200 dollar bene from the increased tax.


The idea is to make things simpler.   My big pet peeve is our debt.  They do forward forecasts taking into account a GDP growth factor.  Sounds a little like the way real estate was being sold not to long ago. Well your mortgage is this but when you factor in the capital appreciation you are going to he ahead of the game.   Are growth is minimal and our debt is growing.  What if we have a negative growth year, yeah cant happen the economy is always expanding. Sounds a little like real estate crowd a few years ago.  We could be in for a world of hurt if we are not careful.  So in terms of simplicity I would formulate a budget based on tax revenue divide it out in percentages as to how it is being doled out now and tell all departments this is what your getting, make do.  If every departments had to take a 15 % hair cut to make the numbers work that that the way it goes.  

It is time we start rebuilding our infrastructure and I think we should make Mexico pay. HA.  The money would come from the military and foreign aid.  Redirect some of there budget to the Army core of engineers and tell the to get working. Work will be done for Americans by Americans.

Taxes well flatten them, which will create another treasure trove of problems.

I could go on  but I have work to do.

tjf1967 wrote

Well if they are going to get 2200 per month and now you are telling them there SSI taxes are no longer capped at 118k but you are still only going to get 2200 per month.   He is getting no benefit.  How can you not see that?  So if you make 218k you are going to pay an extra 12k in taxes and get the same 2200 dollar bene from the increased tax.


The idea is to make things simpler.   My big pet peeve is our debt.  They do forward forecasts taking into account a GDP growth factor.  Sounds a little like the way real estate was being sold not to long ago. Well your mortgage is this but when you factor in the capital appreciation you are going to he ahead of the game.   Are growth is minimal and our debt is growing.  What if we have a negative growth year, yeah cant happen the economy is always expanding. Sounds a little like real estate crowd a few years ago.  We could be in for a world of hurt if we are not careful.  So in terms of simplicity I would formulate a budget based on tax revenue divide it out in percentages as to how it is being doled out now and tell all departments this is what your getting, make do.  If every departments had to take a 15 % hair cut to make the numbers work that that the way it goes.  

It is time we start rebuilding our infrastructure and I think we should make Mexico pay. HA.  The money would come from the military and foreign aid.  Redirect some of there budget to the Army core of engineers and tell the to get working. Work will be done for Americans by Americans.

Taxes well flatten them, which will create another treasure trove of problems.

I could go on  but I have work to do.

I get it.

But your next paragraph makes my argument for me. If you hate the debt, then the government has to start doing some things that generate more money than they spend. Taking in more money for the social security system, while not paying any more out, will reduce the debt load. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to get that money from the people who can afford it. People who have savings of their own and won't have to rely entirely on social security in their retirement.

Sure, we could lower those people's taxes, but it wouldn't help pay down the debt that you're so scared about.

SSI and out National Budget should have nothing to do with each other.   You can cant raise money from SSI and spend it in other parts of the economy that's why SSI is shape it is.    

mattchuck2 wrote

I'm just not seeing why this plan is needed and I'm definitely not seeing why this is a major reform that you'd push for.

Fair enough... maybe if you took off your blinders you could see value in ideas other than your own.

That's not how it works. Read this:

http://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2015/9/23/9380387/federal-budget-social-security-medicare

What that means, in practice, is that Congress, like everybody else, treats money as money. Sometimes, when money is short, one hand does (and should) in fact pay the other.

Read the article to understand why the whole concept of a "Trust Fund" is mostly bullshit and why Congress will probably just keep paying full SS benefits even when the trust fund runs out.

nepa wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

I'm just not seeing why this plan is needed and I'm definitely not seeing why this is a major reform that you'd push for.

Fair enough... maybe if you took off your blinders you could see value in ideas other than your own.

Like I said, "value" is in the eye of the beer holder.

If you derive more value from your tax scheme than you would from social security, it's a shit deal for the government. If the government derives more value from your tax scheme, it's a shit deal for the individual. In the middle, it adds complication to a system that should be uncomplicated (every person in the u.s. plays by the same social security rules).

The value just isn't there. If you can convince me that there is value in it, cool. Even though I argued against PeeTex's college grant money plan, I can see some value in it, particularly because I've noticed a few articles about it:

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/09/13/nsf-funding/

that was a pretty convoluted article,  the basics I don't agree with.   Sure the proceeds should be invested but the way it works is it is invested and then withdrawn in the form of an IOU.  Essential spending a dollar twice.  Yeah that math wont work forever.

mattchuck2 wrote

Like I said, "value" is in the eye of the beer holder.

Right... I get it...  

You are choosing not to see the idea from a different perspective... hence, you are wearing blinders.  

Although you may disagree, there is value in taking steps now, to reduce Social Security benefit obligations going forward... ask any actuary that works in the Annuity industry.   You may not see value in my idea because the end result does not yield a bunch of cash withdrawn from my bank account, and deposited in yours... but it's there.

Good Luck with your reform fantasy... you dirty-assed Hippie, I'm going to harvest some corn.



 

 

mattchuck2 wrote

tjf1967 wrote

Well if they are going to get 2200 per month and now you are telling them there SSI taxes are no longer capped at 118k but you are still only going to get 2200 per month.   He is getting no benefit.  How can you not see that?  So if you make 218k you are going to pay an extra 12k in taxes and get the same 2200 dollar bene from the increased tax.

Taking in more money for the social security system, while not paying any more out, will reduce the debt load. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to get that money from the people who can afford it.

And you are calling Nepa comrade?  No offense Matt, but who the f' are you to decide what people can afford?  Let's just assume TJ's example fits me.  I look forward to that point every year where I pass the cap for SS withholding.  It's a noticeable increase in my take home, an increase that is invested for retirement, or can be used if need be.  I don't have any pension coming my way on retirement, so I'm dependent upon savings and SS.  Because you arbitrarily decide I can afford it I should donate that $12k to the government as opposed to save it for retirement?

Sure, you'll rail that anyone who makes over $x is upper class, but that is an imperfect game to play.  I always have thought that the Governments definition of middle class is screwed up.  How can you take someone in Dubuque who has a $50k, $100k, whatever income and say they have equal financial footing as someone who makes the same in the NYC area?

JTG4eva! wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

tjf1967 wrote

Well if they are going to get 2200 per month and now you are telling them there SSI taxes are no longer capped at 118k but you are still only going to get 2200 per month.   He is getting no benefit.  How can you not see that?  So if you make 218k you are going to pay an extra 12k in taxes and get the same 2200 dollar bene from the increased tax.

Taking in more money for the social security system, while not paying any more out, will reduce the debt load. It seems to me that the best way to do that is to get that money from the people who can afford it.

And you are calling Nepa comrade?  No offense Matt, but who the f' are you to decide what people can afford?  Let's just assume TJ's example fits me.  I look forward to that point every year where I pass the cap for SS withholding.  It's a noticeable increase in my take home, an increase that is invested for retirement, or can be used if need be.  I don't have any pension coming my way on retirement, so I'm dependent upon savings and SS.  Because you arbitrarily decide I can afford it I should donate that $12k to the government as opposed to save it for retirement?

Sure, you'll rail that anyone who makes over $x is upper class, but that is an imperfect game to play.  I always have thought that the Governments definition of middle class is screwed up.  How can you take someone in Dubuque who has a $50k, $100k, whatever income and say they have equal financial footing as someone who makes the same in the NYC area?

If you're paying $12k extra in social security taxes from lifting the cap (assuming you're working a regular job), you're making over $300,000 dollars a year. That's pretty well off in any part of the country. If you're making $150,000 a year, then the 6.2% increase in tax would be applied to every dollar you make over the current cap of $118,500, or $31,500. You'd pay an extra $1,953, or 1.3% more of your income.

And it's not for me to decide what people can afford. I made this thread to come up with some changes that I feel would help this country. I think that's one of the changes that would help.

What are some of your ideas?

Matt, I didn't vet JT's numbers.  Doesn't really matter.  Whether it's $2k extra if you make $150k, $6k extra if you make $218k, or $12k or more if you make whatever......why would you expect that as a donation to the Government, instead of people responsibly saving for the future? Hey, instead of lifting the earnings cap, let's double the withholding rate on earnings above $38k, the 2015 NY middle class lower bound income?  Maybe something else equally arbitrary?

Foreign aid money, some $50+b annually.....some of that could be better invested to address immigration and whatnot at home.

Changing politics as usual, where pork barrel legislation increases Government spending while serving special interests and local constituents.  As long as people's focus is on 'getting my piece', as opposed to doing what's right, there will always be waste.

I'd like to see unemployment and welfare programs better managed, because they are rife with abuse.

Of course that isn't where the big dollars are.

It's difficult to talk about cutting defense spending, but it's one of the largest discretionary spending items, and spending in the military industrial complex needs to be looked at.

Healthcare reform, given that it's the second biggest spending bucket in the U.S. Government,  is a must....but reform that addresses cost, and not just mandates coverage.

Those are areas I would like to see addressed, but I don't have specific proposals for you.

JTG4eva! wrote

Matt, I didn't vet JT's numbers.  Doesn't really matter.  Whether it's $2k extra if you make $150k, $6k extra if you make $218k, or $12k or more if you make whatever.  Why would you expect that as a donation to the Government, instead of people responsibly saving for the future? Hey, instead of lifting the earnings cap, let's double the withholding rate on earnings above $38k, the 2015 NY middle class lower bound income?  Maybe something else equally arbitrary?

If that's your idea, sure, why not?

But I think my plan would be more politically feasible than yours. Seems easier to say: 100% of your income is taxed for social security, but only 3% of Donald Trump's is (or whatever) and that's not fair. Most people wouldn't see a difference in their paycheck under my plan, whereas your plan would cause immediate harm to a lot of middle class families.

Yes, people like Coach and You think the plan is bat shit crazy. Not a surprise. But I want to genuinely want to hear your ideas for making the country better. If this plan will cause too much undo hardship on people in the $118,500 to $1 million income level, how do you think we should fix social security and the retirement system that might be in real trouble when a bunch of 65 year olds with no savings try to retire?

tjf1967 wrote

SSI and out National Budget should have nothing to do with each other.   You can cant raise money from SSI and spend it in other parts of the economy that's why SSI is shape it is.

Bingo!

SS is a retirement safety net. Even if you made a shit pile of money you could easily loose a shit pile of money and need it after retirement. I don't care how rich you are, if you paid into you get to draw out of it. That was the deal and if you break that deal just because a person is considered rich, well that's default, but only Trump can do that.

People forget that SS was never passed as a tax for general expenditures, it was to be a reserve lock boxed fund for everyone's retirement. Then the government start stealing cookies from the cookie jar and defaulting on the promises.

mattchuck2 wrote

Yes, people like Coach and You think the plan is bat shit crazy. Not a surprise. But I want to genuinely want to hear your ideas for making the country better. If this plan will cause too much undo hardship on people in the $118,500 to $1 million income level, how do you think we should fix social security and the retirement system that might be in real trouble when a bunch of 65 year olds with no savings try to retire?

Don't use SS to fix the debt problem. If you want to tax the wealthy, tax the wealthy but don't use SS to do it. A heavily progressive income tax is better. If the wealthy want to move their income oversea tax overseas income. If they want to leave the country, revoke their passport and citizenship, which might require a constitutional amendment (natural born citizen).
Remove the threat that the rich will leave, they won't leave if they can't come back. There are ways to solve these problems without turn SS completely into just another income tax for general revenue.

So in your scenario the individual cap would be eliminated but the companies cap would not be?  Is that because corporations are people?  Im only kidding

Matt 12.4 percent of the first 118k is taxable for ssi. So if you make 218k that comes to my 12k number. It was not exact but for this discussion it was close enough. I accept your apology.  

tjf1967 wrote

Matt 12.4 percent of the first 118k is taxable for ssi. So if you make 218k that comes to my 12k number. It was not exact but for this discussion it was close enough. I accept your apology.

Only if you own your own business. I only pay 6.2% because I work for an employer. I thought I mentioned that in my post.