-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
benjipwns
Banned
It's really just semantics though.
Fenderputty
Banned
Like everyone ever operates under the assumption.
LBJ might have been uglier, but Richard Nixon was still profoundly ugly. That's not debatable.
My proposal for Social Security and Medicare fixing (FICA) is called the Entitlement Accountability Act.
Basically, change the payroll tax rate annually based on an actuarial analysis. Many state governments do this for unemployment insurance. The concept is each year, the FICA accounting department sets the tax rate depending on the amount of revenue needed to fund the expected benefit payments for the next year + a safety factor.
So now the tax rate is 6.2% and Social Security is over-funded right now so under my system, our tax rate might go down to 4% or 5%.
Medicare/Medicaid is under-funded so we pay 1.45% now but that should probably be higher like 2% or 3%.
My system accomplishes many things:
1) Gets idiot politicians away from American society's long-term acceptance of these programs and the benefits they provide
2) Gives people a more direct understanding of where their money is going since the tax each year is only funding enough to cover current benefits
3) Because of #2, it subjects the FICA program administrators to closer taxpayer scrutiny and incentivizes reducing waste and fraud and increasing efficiency
4) Gets FICA out of the budget process so Congress does not get to use the current over-funding of Social Security as a slush fund / compensating for their irresponsible spending.
5) Simpler accounting of our national debt. The intergovernmental accounting with the general fund selling bonds to the Social Security administration is asinine and needlessly complicated. The current design seems to purposely confuse taxpayers and obfuscate the real spending issue in Washington DC. *cough* defense *cough*
Such a good idea that it will never happen.
Separate points
1) I don't think that removing the cap on Social Security is fair. Social Security wages are capped because there is a maximum benefit payout. Medicare does not have a cap because there is no maximum payout.
2) Medicare benefits are not based on a person's pre-retirement or post-retirement income. The only way medicare could get fairer is basing premiums on means-testing.
3) They should lower the retirement age back down to 60/62/65. Just because people have been living longer in general since they started it in 1960, that doesn't mean people are in good-enough physical or mental condition to keep working (fuck you Alzheimer's). Then combine that with the fact that people are working more hours per week than they were 60 years ago.
4) Fuck you Tip O Neill and Ronald Reagan
Basically, change the payroll tax rate annually based on an actuarial analysis. Many state governments do this for unemployment insurance. The concept is each year, the FICA accounting department sets the tax rate depending on the amount of revenue needed to fund the expected benefit payments for the next year + a safety factor.
So now the tax rate is 6.2% and Social Security is over-funded right now so under my system, our tax rate might go down to 4% or 5%.
Medicare/Medicaid is under-funded so we pay 1.45% now but that should probably be higher like 2% or 3%.
My system accomplishes many things:
1) Gets idiot politicians away from American society's long-term acceptance of these programs and the benefits they provide
2) Gives people a more direct understanding of where their money is going since the tax each year is only funding enough to cover current benefits
3) Because of #2, it subjects the FICA program administrators to closer taxpayer scrutiny and incentivizes reducing waste and fraud and increasing efficiency
4) Gets FICA out of the budget process so Congress does not get to use the current over-funding of Social Security as a slush fund / compensating for their irresponsible spending.
5) Simpler accounting of our national debt. The intergovernmental accounting with the general fund selling bonds to the Social Security administration is asinine and needlessly complicated. The current design seems to purposely confuse taxpayers and obfuscate the real spending issue in Washington DC. *cough* defense *cough*
Such a good idea that it will never happen.
Separate points
1) I don't think that removing the cap on Social Security is fair. Social Security wages are capped because there is a maximum benefit payout. Medicare does not have a cap because there is no maximum payout.
2) Medicare benefits are not based on a person's pre-retirement or post-retirement income. The only way medicare could get fairer is basing premiums on means-testing.
3) They should lower the retirement age back down to 60/62/65. Just because people have been living longer in general since they started it in 1960, that doesn't mean people are in good-enough physical or mental condition to keep working (fuck you Alzheimer's). Then combine that with the fact that people are working more hours per week than they were 60 years ago.
4) Fuck you Tip O Neill and Ronald Reagan
Removing the cap is fair because SS does benefit those who don't draw from it as well, really it benefits everyone in increased spending which helps drive the economy and as a result all those people the cap is supposed to protect are making money. So they don't see the direct benefits, but let's not pretend they don't benefit.
My question was regarding the benefits cut, not how SS was funded.
benjipwns
Banned
Plus they basically already do this anyway.
Coriolanus
Banned
Which means its about bloody time that democrats should force a change in narrative. That discussion has been stuck in Ross Perot times for far too long. Ain't winning any republican votes over being fiscally conservative either.
And why will they have to start reducing payments?
Coriolanus
Banned
"it's illegal for a reason, and that's the law, and the law is the law" is, sadly, too common a sentiment.
benjipwns
Banned
Their kids moved out and they want to revisit their glory days that they imagine entirely differently from the reality! A black President and a woman President! That's totally the extent of what we envisioned! Let's take a hit of Betty's medicinal (for her hip joints) pot!
Philosophically and practically, sales taxes are so much worse. Republican governors love that shit and it's the worst tax of them all as far as disproportionately affecting low-income households.
However, sales tax does have a place. The appropriate use of sales taxes I see is for fuel (if it goes to fund roads and bridge maintenance, trucking / construction / businesses use the most fuel and put the most wear on our roads) and hotel accommodations (tax levied to take advantage of out-of-state tourists).
Poodlestrike
Banned
Better than "it's wrong because somebody said it was wrong," which is what the top answer amounts to.
benjipwns
Banned
I'd say "hurts society" is how most laws are justified.
Coriolanus
Banned
They're both appeals to authority, so semantics.
benjipwns
Banned
I don't think this discussion is allowed without Meta present.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
And accounted for.
What are we talking about?
EDIT: Oh, is it this?
Fuel taxes are excise taxes, not sales taxes.
OK, semantic problem solved. Let's get back to business.
Gotchaye explained it in an earlier post if you'd like to read back.
benjipwns
Banned
So going by that marijuana graph, why isn't the democratic party coming out in full support of legalization? It would hype up the base and is very popular with independents. What's the downside?
When did you get back to poliGAF? I've missed your foreign policy analysis in here.
benjipwns
Banned
As Hillary said, you can't end the war on drugs, there's too much money in it.
Since I should at least post a source for this once in my life:
Coriolanus
Banned
Because they're the democratic party.
By that i mean that, while that may be the case on a national level, you'll have a bunch of twats on a state/municipal level playing republican lite and thinking that they fuuuuucked if they raise the issue.
Or what benji sed, corruption is fine too.
JesseEwiak
Member
While, first of all, many of the people in Congress are 60-80 year old white guys, who, even though they're Democrats, may not support marijuana legalization personally.
Second, it's not the number of people who support it, but where they are. For example, if likely voters Ohio, Florida, and say, Virginia all actually oppose marijuana legalization, it doesn't really matter that everybody in Cali wants to blaze up.
Third, it's a lower priority for most people. So, coming out for it will get you attacked by the Republican's, while not getting much of a boost of a support from the hordes of pot smokers. Same thing with things, unfortunately, like climate change.
Finally, as always, politicians are behind the times and think their constiuents are more conservative than they actually are (http://themonkeycage.org/2013/04/22...tions-and-prospects-for-constituency-control/).
There is a good chance that there will be marijuana measures on the ballot in several states on Election Day 2016.
Nevada is a definite go for a 2016 vote:
http://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2016)
There are efforts in other states for 2016 ballot measures as well.
(Of note: California, Michigan, Maine, Arizona, and Missouri.)
Ohio has two ballot measures being considered, one for 2015 and one for 2016. I'm already imagining 2016 turnout among young voters.. mm..
Coriolanus
Banned
I wonder... sure, if you frame it only as a means of getting pot smoker votes, it wouldn't be optimal.
Frame it, however, as a new revenue source for the state, one which would free up resources to invest in X, Y and Z on top of reducing expenses with law enforcement and prisons, and it seems like quite the safe bet that this would help motivate voters from all walks of life. You got good data, use it.
Also because, like, by not using it you're simply ceding the point to the other party.
Climate change is a different matter entirely since perception of its effects aint as pronounced as, say, being harassed by cops thanks to drug laws or having someone in the family arrested for possession.
JesseEwiak
Member
But, the problem is, there's not enough evidence out there showing it actually motivate voters from all walks of life to actually turn out to vote or switch their vote from Republican to Democrat or more importantly, won't turn off current voters.
Also, many, many people outside of the liberal enclave that is GAF and the Internet believe the problem is we aren't tough enough on drug users and we aren't sending enough people to prison.
Honestly, I think the reason why more politicians haven't come out for it, is sadly, they've got the data that shows that, for example, it'll lead to more soccer Mom in suburban Virginia switching to voting Republican than it'll lead to other people to start voting for Democrats.
It's the same reason why Obama and Hillary were cagey about the gay marriage issue in '08. Yes, among all my friends, it was obvious that gay marriage was a good idea, but among blue collar Indiana voters or religious black voters in North Carolina that were narrow wins for Obama? Not so much.
Speaking of fun 2016 amendments:
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Pension_Cuts_Initiative_(2016)
http://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Oath_of_Office_Amendment_(2016)
Only 9 representatives and senators voted Nay on this bill:
Rep. Anderegg (R)
Rep. Cox (R)
Rep. Hawkes (R)
Rep. McCay (R)
Rep. Schultz (R)
Rep. Thurston (R)
Sen. Hillyard (R)
Utah haters!
http://ballotpedia.org/California_Public_Pension_Cuts_Initiative_(2016)
http://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Oath_of_Office_Amendment_(2016)
Only 9 representatives and senators voted Nay on this bill:
Rep. Anderegg (R)
Rep. Cox (R)
Rep. Hawkes (R)
Rep. McCay (R)
Rep. Schultz (R)
Rep. Thurston (R)
Sen. Hillyard (R)
Utah haters!
Aaron Strife
Banned
Don't think weed legalization would boost turnout much honestly. But maybe I'm just unfairly stereotyping.
Weed legalization is one of those tipping point issues, like if you're stuck between two candidates, or you aren't sure if you want to go out and vote, weed will push you over the edge. It won't change anyone's mind on a candidate or boost turnout, but it's one of those subtle issues that can have an affect, albeit a small one.
Another fun ballot measure that looks like it will be voted on:
http://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2016)
More on RCV:
http://ballotpedia.org/Instant-runoff_voting
http://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative_(2016)
More on RCV:
http://ballotpedia.org/Instant-runoff_voting
JesseEwiak
Member
Voters, it's these evil terrible public employees fault life is terrible for you, with their benefits and middle class pay. Not my fault, the politician who spent years giving you tax cuts and avoiding making the correct payments to the pension fund.
That's what I suspect. If we're talking about a <1% race, it could make the difference in a state. But I'm not thinking of Florida-style multiple-hour waits in Ohio or Nevada.
If the overall election is that close, something's gone horribly wrong..
benjipwns
Banned
Her? What is she, funny or something?
Coriolanus
Banned
Benji posted the data, like, not even 50 posts ago, mate. At this point, in order to not act this way, one must bring data that supports such a course of action.
Plus, yknow, as bams has been teaching (or trying to) the dems, even if you can't achieve anything, addressing the problem boosts your popularity. Your base needs pandering. Don't blindly count on it while chasing dat independent vote.
Also seriously doubt that anyone that thinks that the problem with american prisons is that they're not harsh enough would ever vote democrat. No worries there.
JesseEwiak
Member
41% of African-American's and 58% of Hispanic people oppose the legalization of pot, likely for the reasons that they've seen drugs destroy their community, along with a variety of other reasons you or me might not agree with. They're part of the base too, not just hipster liberals who want to toke up.
Again, I'm not saying the DNC shouldn't be for the legalization of pot. I'm not saying that it'd even be good politically.
But, this idea that it's insane the DNC isn't full bore behind pot legalization now that it has a narrow majority support is kind of silly. I explained the reasons why a politician might not support it. Again, I don't agree with all of it, but it's not crazy - it's simply a question of priorities and beliefs.
The vilification of government employees will never make sense to me.
benjipwns
Banned
Yeah, it's not their fault they can't make a living providing goods or services people want.
JesseEwiak
Member
It's pretty simple - it's a lot easier to hate somebody for having something you don't have, then figuring out why you don't have those things.
(Before I get in a run-in, I know this can be attack on the attacks on the wealthy.)
Coriolanus
Banned
I c.
Would have to ponder if the benefit of accruing a larger share of the white electorate would be enough to offset those potential losses.
Hrm.
Why not support marijuana legalization in the context of broader criminal justice reform? Don't just frame it as letting stoners get high, but as addressing our overcrowded prisons and unfair sentencing and enforcement. I guess the issue there is that anyone supporting broad reform on that issue is already a reliable Democrat voter.
Oh well, it seems like this is something that will just have to bee settled in ballot measures for the next several years.
Full disclosure, I'm stoned right now.
Oh well, it seems like this is something that will just have to bee settled in ballot measures for the next several years.
Full disclosure, I'm stoned right now.
benjipwns
Banned
So what? They're criminals! Hang 'em all! /gafdeathpenaltythreads
I am not. I'm not even a reliably unreliable voter.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yup, people who think that are either "both parties are the same" lefties who will never for Democrats anyway (and are .5% of the population), firm supporters of the Democratic party, or libertarians who oppose the Democrat's anyway because we think the federal government should exist.
There are brief bits of hope - Georgia recently did some minor reform, but it was done with a, "we've got no money, so to save some money, we've got to reform the system somewhat, but that doesn't mean marijuana isn't the devil's weed or black people are still shady" message from the Republican legislature.
My dad and I got into a huge fight about this before he told me that he doesn't have a retirement (my mom has a pretty substantial plan, anyway), so he shouldn't have to cover other people's. It was basically to a benji-esque idea that all taxes are a form for theft. (hi benji). The idea that government employees, on average, make 55k in Hartford County, CT, seemed criminal to him.
Oh you.
Also the same thing I wanted to tell my father about this business :3
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Polls always overstate support of this issue compared to election day results. It's one of those issues people like in theory, but allow FUD to take over when it comes time to take real action on election day. The states that did pass it were only able to do so with polls that showed gigantic support, not just marginal support, in order to have a buffer for that election day dip.
Its popularity also comes from a good amount of republicans being for it too. Democrat support is only at 60-40 and that's with the halo effect I was talking about above. You tend to be more worried about losing supporters than gaining new ones, and Democrats do seem to have a lot of supporters that might dislike the idea of legalization.
benjipwns
Banned
It's why I oppose monopoly corporations that can't go out of business.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked