Support NeoGAF

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Hopefully my future job with the government isn't in jeopardy if by some miracle any of this passes. If so, then fuck Obama. Jason Bourne needs a job with an agency.

 

[johnsmith]

This is a fucking joke and I'm not laughing.


Retirement at 69? They better hope Ray Kurzweil is right about the radical life extension breakthroughs in the next few decades.

 

[Ulairi]

This is a fucking joke and I'm not laughing.


Retirement at 69? They better hope Ray Kurzweil is right about the radical life extension breakthroughs in the next few decades.

Do you know what the life expectancy was when social security was enacted? 58 for men and 62 for women. The retirement age? 65.

I really like a lot in the proposal because it is of consequence. People aren't getting a real "tax cut" because the rate you're taxed at and the actual taxes you pare are very different. Simplifying the tax code is extremely beneficial for actually collecting taxes. I just see normal liberal gaf knee-jerk reaction. "BUSINESS BAD!" "INCOME EARNS BAD!"

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Just because there isn't a likelyhood of this making its way to congress doesn't change the fact they're even considering it.

 

[Ulairi]

Just because there isn't a likelyhood of this making its way to congress doesn't change the fact they're even considering it.

It just shows that the Democrats aren't serious about fiscal reform. It also shows that the average poster in this thread lacks the reading comprehension skills of a 4th grader.

 

[Azrael]

Do you know what the life expectancy was when social security was enacted? 58 for men and 62 for women. The retirement age? 65.

Life expectancy has improved primarily because of the decrease of premature deaths. The life expectancy of a 65-year-old today isn't so much different than the life expectancy of a 65-year-old half a century ago. But fewer people are dying before they reach old age.

 

[S1lent]

Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams

Yeah, I guess that drop in the bucket is simply too costly for an informed citizenry.

 

[Ulairi]

Life expectancy has improved primarily because of the decrease of premature deaths. The life expectancy of a 65-year-old today isn't so much different than the life expectancy of a 65-year-old half a century ago. But fewer people are dying before they reach old age.

We are not looking at the life expectancy today. We're looking 40 years down the road which they expect it tobe higher. A child born according to the CD in 2005 has a life expectancy of almost 76 years, and depending on external factors it can be higher. Social security is a ponzy scheme and is not sustainable. Also, nothing stops someone from saving for their retirement in terms of pensions, retirement plans and tax deferred retirement instruments. Social security was never meant to fund a persons retirement. It's a safety net. If someone wants to retire earlier they should save for it.

 

[eznark]

I like they hyerventilating over the social security age increase. Nothing is stopping you from retiring when you want, you'll just need to earn it yourself.

Hopefully none of you hurt yourself as you fainted.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

This is not nearly as bad as some of you are implying. It's a very complex recommendation. Many of these tax cuts, with deductions removed, will ultimately be tax hikes which disproprtionately affect the wealthy. That's very well done.

I'm not particularly fund of the spending cuts, however. I am, as many others here are, of the opinion that defense spending should be cut hugely, while science-based funding should (if anything) increase.

And everyone else has their own comfort zones.

Thing is, if it's compromised to cause as few as possible to hurt, it fails at its goal.

 

[HK-47]

Wow, they fucking hate NASA.

 

[Nerevar]

these people can't be so fucking stupid as to even suggest repealing the mortgage interest tax credit at this point in time, can they? They do realize what that would do to the residential housing market? And that we just dodged the great depression 2.0 as a result of a collapse of residential housing values? Honestly, politicians are so mind-numbingly stupid sometimes.

Also, that credit disproportionately favors the middle class. Glad to see the US Government is continuing to wage war against the middle class and separating us into the super-wealthy and the downtrodden poor.

 

[Ulairi]

these people can't be so fucking stupid as to even suggest repealing the mortgage interest tax credit at this point in time, can they? They do realize what that would do to the residential housing market? And that we just dodged the great depression 2.0 as a result of a collapse of residential housing values? Honestly, politicians are so mind-numbingly stupid sometimes.

Also, that credit disproportionately favors the middle class. Glad to see the US Government is continuing to wage war against the middle class and separating us into the super-wealthy and the downtrodden poor.

Your income taxes would decrease in turn for no longer getting the deduction.

 

[KHarvey16]

these people can't be so fucking stupid as to even suggest repealing the mortgage interest tax credit at this point in time, can they? They do realize what that would do to the residential housing market? And that we just dodged the great depression 2.0 as a result of a collapse of residential housing values? Honestly, politicians are so mind-numbingly stupid sometimes.

Also, that credit disproportionately favors the middle class. Glad to see the US Government is continuing to wage war against the middle class and separating us into the super-wealthy and the downtrodden poor.

You're ignoring half the equation.

 

[AndyD]

Social Security can be "saved" by just removing the cap on the payroll tax. It's only applied to the first ~$100k. Remove it, and the problem is pretty much done.

Not included, among other things: directly negotiated prices for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D. Savings: a couple hundred billion over the next decade.

Is there a max limit on what you can receive back in SS? If so, then it makes sense to keep a limit on what you pay too.

And I agree on Medicare negotiation. It would raise the prices a bit for non Medicare, but it would significantly reduce Medicare costs as well.

 

[empty vessel]

Social security is a ponzy scheme and is not sustainable.

That's a fucking ridiculous statement that you couldn't begin to back up with empirical evidence.

Also, nothing stops someone from saving for their retirement in terms of pensions, retirement plans and tax deferred retirement instruments.

Except (1) there are no pensions; (2) retirement plans and tax deferred instruments are risky--the opposite of insurance; and (3) social security is fiscally responsible from a societal standpoint. There is no good reason to not require people to have retirement insurance (which is what social security is). Our society will not, by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly (or otherwise never earned enough to save) to die in the streets. Which means we will be paying for their retirement one way or another. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to require payments for retirement insurance along the way.

Social security was never meant to fund a persons retirement. It's a safety net. If someone wants to retire earlier they should save for it.

That's exactly right. It's insurance. And that's precisely why everything you said before these two sentences makes no sense.

 

[Incognito]

caught the news while in a dr appointment; nearly had a heart-attack. what a disgusting joke.

 

[SomeDude]

We are heading for a soviet style breakup

 

[leroidys]

I like they hyerventilating over the social security age increase. Nothing is stopping you from retiring when you want, you'll just need to earn it yourself.

Hopefully none of you hurt yourself as you fainted.

There is a theoretical limit to the amount of walmart greeters that the economy can support.

 

[leroidys]

That's a fucking ridiculous statement that you couldn't begin to back up with empirical evidence.



Except (1) there are no pensions; (2) retirement plans and tax deferred instruments are risky--the opposite of insurance; and (3) social security is fiscally responsible from a societal standpoint. There is no good reason to not require people to have retirement insurance (which is what social security is). Our society will not, by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly (or otherwise never earned enough to save) to die in the streets. Which means we will be paying for their retirement one way or another. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to require payments for retirement insurance along the way.



That's exactly right. It's insurance. And that's precisely why everything you said before these two sentences makes no sense.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Wow...this thing read overall terrible. Even being early, THIS is a "starting point" to try and grow something approaching a well reasoned and nuanced recommendation?!

I would say it isn't unlikely that at least one to a few bits of this stand to ultimately be passed, and given the quality of the administration and congress---probably a bad few with maybe one bone thrown in for people to desperately latch onto.

 

[Technosteve]

does that mean my taxes goes from 20 percent now to 8 percent i like these tax cuts

 

[MCX]

35% to 23%? Yes, please.

 

[Slavik81]

America has, IIRC, the second highest corporate income tax rate of all industrialized nations, but is below average in the effective corporate tax rate, ie what corporations actually pay, because of all the tax loopholes and tax shelters.

And the important part of this is that to actually get that low tax rate, you need to spend thousands of dollars on hiring some tax specialists to help you. That's cheap for big corporations who save millions from it, but small businesses can't afford it and end up paying higher taxes.

The American tax system is long overdue for a simplification.

That's a fucking ridiculous statement that you couldn't begin to back up with empirical evidence.

Except (1) there are no pensions; (2) retirement plans and tax deferred instruments are risky--the opposite of insurance; and (3) social security is fiscally responsible from a societal standpoint. There is no good reason to not require people to have retirement insurance (which is what social security is). Our society will not, by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly (or otherwise never earned enough to save) to die in the streets. Which means we will be paying for their retirement one way or another. The fiscally responsible thing to do is to require payments for retirement insurance along the way.

That's exactly right. It's insurance. And that's precisely why everything you said before these two sentences makes no sense.

1. Social Security is often referred to as being like a Ponzi Scheme because in a Ponzi scheme the money from the second person is used to pay the first. The money from the third person is used to pay the second. Etc. The first person gets a free ride and the last person in gets screwed. Social Security is the same in this respect.

2. Social Security, as it stands, is not sustainable because its costs will increase vastly beyond its funding as a large number of people qualify in the upcoming years. If you want detailed analysis of the budgetary gap, you can see the 2010 Global Aging report by Standard and Poors. They talk at length about the causes of rising costs, what options are open to countries, and even have estimates for the sustainability gap.

3. A retirement plan is only as risky as you make it.

4. Tax deferred instruments are not inherently risky. I contribute $5000 per year to a tax-free savings account. The tax is applied upon withdrawl. Even if the bank were to go under, my account is still covered by depositor's insurance. The only possible risk is that my life savings are wiped out by the insolvency of the government. And at that point, Social Security wouldn't be doing too hot, either.

5. Your faith in Social Security as insurance is ill-placed. Insurance is only as stalwart as the one who guarantees it. With the way things are going, it's more likely that Social Security will have been cut back or even ceased to exist by the time I retire than it is that my retirement savings will have disappeared. If Social Security was actually backed by assets, I might believe differently, but it's not. Ultimately, it's really just funded from current tax revenues and thus has serious risks.

 

[empty vessel]

1. Social Security is often referred to as being like a Ponzi Scheme because in a Ponzi scheme the money from the second person is used to pay the first. The money from the third person is used to pay the second. Etc. The first person gets a free ride and the last person in gets screwed. Social Security is the same in this respect.

Only if you're an idiot who believes that human reproduction will literally end. We have an issue right now because human reproduction declined after the baby boom generation, and that requires us to make some adjustments. But human reproduction has not ended, unless you'd care to provide some empirical evidence of that. So, yes, Social Security is a ponzi scheme if we assume that all people will stop having children and humanity will end altogether. But, at that point, who fucking cares?

2. Social Security, as it stands, is not sustainable because its costs will increase vastly beyond its funding as a large number of people qualify in the upcoming years.

False. Its costs will increase beyond its funding only so long as we maintain a cap on income that contributes towards it. Remove that cap, and it almost entirely eliminates that hiccup. And once the baby boom generation passes, its costs will decline.

If you want detailed analysis of the budgetary gap, you can see the 2010 Global Aging report by Standard and Poors. They talk at length about the causes of rising costs, what options are open to countries, and even have estimates for the sustainability gap.

The (unproven) premise of this work is advancements in medical technology that keep people alive longer. We are not there yet. When we are there, we can talk about changes in social security. Assuming these advancements come to fruition, and that these advancements allow people not only to live longer but also to work longer (i.e., they slow the ageing process itself), then the changes that need to be made are readily apparent: higher retirement age. But, again, we aren't there now, and this factor has nothing to do with the sustainability of the program.

3. A retirement plan is only as risky as you make it.

Which omits the point that society will not permit elderly people to die in the streets. It is fiscally irresponsible as a society to depend upon individuals to make safe investments and savings for retirement. Additionally, the economy that we have chosen as a society does not pay many people enough in wages such that we should expect that they should save anything for retirement. So, just like cars, we require retirement insurance. Except we do it more efficiently and fiscally responsibly through the government.

4. Tax deferred instruments are not inherently risky. I contribute $5000 per year to a tax-free savings account. The tax is applied upon withdrawl. Even if the bank were to go under, my account is still covered by depositor's insurance. The only possible risk is that my life savings are wiped out by the insolvency of the government. And at that point, Social Security wouldn't be doing too hot, either.

See above. I don't think I should be made to depend upon your individual fiscal responsibility at the risk of my having to pay for your dumb ass in old age if you fuck up. This is moral hazard. Because individuals know they will be bailed out in their old age if they fuck up, they will be inclined to place riskier bets with their money for a higher payout. Fuck that. That's why retirement insurance is the socially responsible path.

5. Your faith in Social Security as insurance is ill-placed. Insurance is only as stalwart as the one who guarantees it. With the way things are going, it's more likely that Social Security will have been cut back or even ceased to exist by the time I retire than it is that my retirement savings will have disappeared. If Social Security was actually backed by assets, I might believe differently, but it's not. Ultimately, it's really just funded from current tax revenues and thus has serious risks.

Let's put it this way: if the "risks" from the social security program you fret about come to fruition, then whatever money you have in the stock market or in any savings account is gone as well. There's a reason why governments can borrow at lower interest rates than any other institution: they are the most safe. If you don't understand this yet still assert that I should trust you to make your own economic decisions about your retirement, you're fucking crazy. And, no, I won't trust you.

 

[GhaleonEB]

False. Its costs will increase beyond its funding only so long as we maintain a cap on income that contributes towards it. Remove that cap, and it almost entirely eliminates that hiccup. And once the baby boom generation passes, its costs will decline.

This statement, in graphs:

Currently, wages over a certain yearly total ($106,800 this year) are exempted from Social Security payroll taxes. Medicare's payroll tax has no such cap. This has raised the question of how raising the cap could extend Social Security's solvency. Janemarie Mulvey and Debra Whitman of the Congressional Research Service looked at this question in 2008 by evaluating three different proposals. The first would raise the cap so that 90 percent of wages are taxed (CRS estimates this would mean a cap of $171,600 in 2006) and pay higher benefits to those affected; the second would eliminate the cap and pay higher benefits; and the third would eliminate the cap for taxes but would not increase benefits. Here is how the proposals would affect the actuarial state of Social Security, as compared to its current trajectory:

Alternately, here's how much of the Social Security shortfall is eliminated by each proposal:

While all proposals put a dent in the shortfall, completely eliminating the cap without increasing benefits actually creates a long-term surplus, and eliminating the cap while increasing benefits comes close. The nature of Social Security as a social insurance, rather than welfare, program suggests that the latter proposal may be more palatable, as it retains the connection between what wage-earners pay into Social Security and what they get out of it.​

 

[legend166]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good whinge. Shame the topic title had to be false.

There's some serious financial reforms being proposed that would be pretty helpful, I think.

A simplification of the tax scheme is the best way to go about getting the wealthy to actually pay more taxes than simply raising the percentage value. Everyone's heard the story of Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary due to loopholes and capital gains not being counted as regular income.

Of course, none of this will ever get through.

 

[empty vessel]

A simplification of the tax scheme is the best way to go about getting the wealthy to actually pay more taxes than simply raising the percentage value. Everyone's heard the story of Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary due to loopholes and capital gains not being counted as regular income.

That's true, but since the wealthy have already been paying an inequitable share even discounting loopholes and capital gains, it would stand to reason that a better alternative might have been to eliminate those loopholes while keeping their marginal tax rate the same or even raising it at higher income levels. Instead, this offer appears status quo, and status quo is entirely unacceptable.

 

[legend166]

That's true, but since the wealthy have already been paying an inequitable share even discounting loopholes and capital gains, it would stand to reason that a better alternative might have been to eliminate those loopholes while keeping their marginal tax rate the same or even raising it at higher income levels. Instead, this offer appears status quo, and status quo is entirely unacceptable.

Do you have stats that say they'd be paying the same?

Not trying to say this in a snarky way or anything, I'm curious :lol

I really think a lot of people would end up paying more. Especially the mega wealthy who basically don't even get salaries and live off capital gains. For those people it's a rise from 20% to 24% even without wiping away deductions and loop holes.

 

[empty vessel]

Do you have stats that say they'd be paying the same?

Not trying to say this in a snarky way or anything, I'm curious :lol

I really think a lot of people would end up paying more. Especially the mega wealthy who basically don't even get salaries and live off capital gains. For those people it's a rise from 20% to 24% even without wiping away deductions and loop holes.

No, I don't have stats. I think that's exactly what we need to see before asserting that this is a tax increase on the wealthy. But my point was that, even if we didn't have a deficit, we still needed a tax increase on the wealthy, because they have been paying much less than they should be. Which means that, if we have do have a deficit crisis (and everybody is saying we do, which was the reason for this commission), then we need a double tax increase on the wealthy. I'm extremely skeptical that this represents that kind of tax hike on the very rich.

 

[Byakuya769]

I like they hyerventilating over the social security age increase. Nothing is stopping you from retiring when you want, you'll just need to earn it yourself.

Hopefully none of you hurt yourself as you fainted.

Sorry, for most of "liberal gaf" we're well off enough that social security retirement age doesn't mean a damn thing for us, personally. Rather, we're concerned about how this affects others.

 

[Captain Sparrow]

I really don't want to get tangled in one of these arguments.

But repealing mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophic, unless they gave you the "credit" up front and cut interest rates further. Otherwise, the housing market would be damaged beyond repair.

 

[Byakuya769]

I really don't want to get tangled in one of these arguments.

But repealing mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophic, unless they gave you the "credit" up front and cut interest rates further. Otherwise, the housing market would be damaged beyond repair.

Maybe a phase out would be very stimulative though... It seems that mobility is definitely at a premium now, and home ownership does make that harder.

 

[gutter_trash]

whatever happens, it will be the middle class who will be taking it up the ass.

the rich will keep their riches and get richer while the poorest poor will get poorer.

And guess who ends up paying for all of it? Yeah, the middle class like always

The Democrats are getting more and more Republican everyday to the point of non-relevance

 

[Evlar]

If this is a "soak the rich" proposal it is an extraordinarily well-disguised one.

 

[AndyD]

This is not nearly as bad as some of you are implying. It's a very complex recommendation. Many of these tax cuts, with deductions removed, will ultimately be tax hikes which disproprtionately affect the wealthy. That's very well done.

I'm not particularly fund of the spending cuts, however. I am, as many others here are, of the opinion that defense spending should be cut hugely, while science-based funding should (if anything) increase.

I agree with this entire post. From my reading while they want to lower overall tax rates, they also want to eliminate deductions and exemptions, ultimately making people and corporations actually have to pay in taxes what their bracket says they should. A simplification of the tax system if you will.

Science spending needs to escalate and quickly as the US is falling behind other countries and its a race in which it is very tough to catch up. And all these tough IP laws the US is trying to pass as worldwide treaties to protect us will soon start working against us, as we will be well behind.

But repealing mortgage interest deduction would be catastrophic, unless they gave you the "credit" up front and cut interest rates further. Otherwise, the housing market would be damaged beyond repair.

Would it not be offset by a decrease in the overall tax rate? At least I read that as their intent.

 

[mckmas8808]

Maybe a phase out would be very stimulative though... It seems that mobility is definitely at a premium now, and home ownership does make that harder.

Not for everybody. Lots of middle america loves stability and sending their kids to the same schools.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

It would be interesting to have lower tax rates but with no loopholes or shelters. I wonder if there is a source somewhere that shows how much money could the government bring in from tax revenues if those loopholes and shelters were closed? If cutting the rate a few percentage points brings in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue due to the lack of loopholes as kind of a tradeoff, I'd be fine with it.

 

[AndyD]

It would be interesting to have lower tax rates but with no loopholes or shelters. I wonder if there is a source somewhere that shows how much money could the government bring in from tax revenues if those loopholes and shelters were closed? If cutting the rate a few percentage points brings in hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue due to the lack of loopholes as kind of a tradeoff, I'd be fine with it.

Right. Its advertised as a "Tax cut for all!" and "Closing loopholes and make it simple!" so people can see it favorably, but in reality its potentially a net increase on some.

Evlar had it right above I think:

If this is a "soak the rich" proposal it is an extraordinarily well-disguised one.

 

[gcubed]

i'd love to see someone do some math on a range of incomes with a "standard" mortgage and calculate what they would receive back vs what they lose in deductions. It is most definitely an across the board tax increase, people not thinking so are delusional as its a "deficit reduction" commission... i'd just be interested in seeing the effect on different classes.

 

[badcrumble]

An excellent writeup on the deficit commission's proposals:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/11/deficit-commission-serious

To put this more succinctly: any serious long-term deficit plan will spend about 1% of its time on the discretionary budget, 1% on Social Security, and 98% on healthcare. Any proposal that doesn't maintain approximately that ratio shouldn't be considered serious. The Simpson-Bowles plan, conversely, goes into loving detail about cuts to the discretionary budget and Social Security but turns suddenly vague and cramped when it gets to Medicare. That's not serious.

Bottom line: this document isn't really aimed at deficit reduction. It's aimed at keeping government small. There's nothing wrong with that if you're a conservative think tank and that's what you're dedicated to selling. But it should be called by its right name. This document is a paean to cutting the federal government, not cutting the federal deficit.

Basically, class warfare, as many of us have been saying.

 

[JGS]

Thread title is kind of misleading. I read the sucker and it is brutal on everyone which means I like it.

The Social Security thing needs to happen right now and just start it at people born year 2000 and up (or get rid of it altogether for those ones).

 

[empty vessel]

The Social Security thing needs to happen right now and just start it at people born year 2000 and up (or get rid of it altogether for those ones).

No.

 

[badcrumble]

Thread title is kind of misleading. I read the sucker and it is brutal on everyone which means I like it.

The Social Security thing needs to happen right now and just start it at people born year 2000 and up (or get rid of it altogether for those ones).

Read the article I linked. Social Security's not in trouble.

 

[JGS]

No.

No what?

Read the article I linked. Social Security's not in trouble.

Who said it was in trouble?

 

[badcrumble]

No what?

Who said it was in trouble?

If you're not in favor of cutting it because it's in danger of running out of funds (which it's not, as we seem to agree) then what's your reasoning? Do you own stock in cat food manufacturers?

 

[JayDubya]

Our society will not, by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly (or otherwise never earned enough to save) to die in the streets.

And that's what charity is for.

 

[CharlieDigital]

And that's what charity is for.

:lol I'm laughing here on the shitter

 

[JayDubya]

Perhaps you would argue that voluntary charity would be inadequate?

If you argue such, you admit that you think that "our society" will "by and large, permit elderly people who planned poorly to die in the streets."

So which is it?

In any event, while these "non-discretionary" programs do need to outright end - as they are the fiscal noose around our nation's neck - it is worth noting that the age elements within them were chosen based on life expectancy... at the very least, should we continue those programs, those numbers should continue to be tied to life expectancy. Otherwise, the liability of such programs will continue to balloon.

69 by 2050 is not nearly aggressive enough. Life expectancy in this country is pushing 80 now.

 

[Inflammable Slinky]

And that's what charity is for.

Who the hell is gonna give to charity if the middle class continues to lose purchasing power and wages?