Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Around the Water Cooler' started by BlueRaiderFan, Jan 18, 2019.
Meh. The United States just had bad luck. All the debt should just be forgiven.
Yeah it’s a problem. Inflicted by both parties.
Trump better address it but that isn’t gonna unseat him.
Still waiting for the outrage...
The biggest drivers of the debt is demographics, then SSI and Medicare. Its really simple...we either start cranking out more babies or we reform SSI and Medicare.
If by reform you mean stop raiding the fund and raise the cap on the SS tax then I agree to an extent, but we could save a hell of a lot of money by not constantly being at war.
While I get your point, the biggest problem with these programs is we don't have enough workers for every beneficiary. Its math, not politics.
And the taxes have been raised multiple times - it used to be a 1% tax on employers only for the first $3k of income - today the tax rate is 14.9% (half taxpayer, half employer). SSI tax is up to $138K in 2019, Medicare tax is on all earned income 2.9% (half on taxpayer, half employer) with the tax rate increasing those with more than $200K in come to 3.8%.
There are not enough rich people to sustain it, so we either need a higher birth rate to get more payers, or we have the change the program. Its not an R or D thing. Its just math.
Demographics always determine your future if you don't equate for its force.
This mess was predicted 40 years ago (look up the late Democratic Senator from NY - Danial Patrick Moynihan - he warned us all about the breakup of the American family) ...and both Rs and Ds have ignored it and those that did (Bush 2 & Paul Ryan) were demonized for trying to change it.
The top 5% in the country own 82% of the wealth. The top 1% now own more than the bottom 80%. Your assertion that it can't be funded with an increase in taxes is incorrect. Take the cap off of the SS tax, or at least increase it. Not buying that people with that kind of wealth can't pay another few percent to make the system work. Also, your use of the original SS tax percentage is disingenuous, at best. There was not wealth disparity like there is now. The top 1% did not own such a large percentage of the pie when SS was initiated.
Your stats are way off...lets show the other side of the equation...the top 20% earn 80%...the top 20% pay 87% of the taxes. The top 1% paid more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined. You should be praising Trump because with his tax changes the top 20% will be paying more than ever. And then we learn that the bottom 45% pay zero federal income tax, this has been a change over the last 25 years - the taxes paid by lower income groups has shrunk and the taxes paid by higher income groups has increased.
Your point about wealth disparity requires another thread...I will say this, when these programs just started we were at the end of a depression (so of course rich people had less money they has the most to lose) then we hit WW2 and the years after. Rich people are following the rules laid out by government when it comes to pay/investing, etc, There are so many factors that impact income and tax collection...its so much more complicated than just saying "the rich" have more so lets tax them.
Your missing my point on the SSI increases...your missing my bigger point on all of this..the problem isn't rich making more or not paying their fair share, the problem is the programs REQUIRE an ever increasing population growth in order to work. You literally could tax the richest one percent 100% and we might balance the budget in year 1, but what happens in year 2?
There is no outrage because no one can feel it yet.
When SS, M/M are impacted...that’s when the despair starts. When defense spending takes a hit...that’s when outrage starts.
This country is too focused on sh!t that doesn’t matter like fake attacks on celebrities, trump’s sex life, Instagram, Snapchat ...etc etc.
Broken record.... this country.
My numbers aren't way off and I'm not missing your point. I'll address your post one point at a time.
1) When you earn 80% of the income paying 87% of the tax is not unreasonable.
2) Of course the top 1% paid more than the bottom 90% combined. The top 1% owns more of the wealth than the bottom 90% combined.
3) The bottom 45% should pay less in taxes, they barely make enough money as it is.
4) We could increase SS tax by a reasonable percentage OVERALL and make it solvent. Your assertion that we could tax the top 1% and it would only remain solvent for one more year is ridiculous. No one stated to increase taxes on solely the top 1%... Your assertion, not mine. Stop playing games with stats and numbers and putting words into my mouth. An increase of 3.1% on the worker and the employer would increase SS funding by 50%, which is more than enough to keep it solvent for a long time to come.
I want everyone to notice here how Mike has been trained, wether he realizes it or not, by right wing pundits and news etc to cherry pick stats of "the top 1% vs the bottom 90%." .Notice he didn't compare the top 1% vs the bottom 99% because that wouldn't make his stats look good.
The truth is we need to lift the cap on the SS tax and have some sort of small increase in the SS tax... Probably between 1-3%. These libertarians simply don't want to pay taxes to help the people of this country. This movement has been started by the wealthy because they want you to believe that it's in your best interest to fight these taxes. The truth is that most of you will need your social security and won't have a cushy retirement like the wealthy. They have most of the pie and they want MORE.
So if we do what you want, do you think rich people will just play a long? You think they want move make changes. or move the money or leave the country...Again, you could tax them 100% and it may not balance the budget for one year less deal with our debt.
I think the problem I have with you is you think the rich have robbed you and stole from you...Our economy is driven by consumers buying products they need and want. I used different stats to show another side, it wasn't cherry picking.
There are bigger forces than tax code that are impacting us which you NEVER address and many on the left will not acknowledge...there is demographics, there is technology changes, job disruptions and changes and world competition. Its not 1950 anymore. We are have economic threats everywhere.
There are only 2.7 workers per SSI retiree today, you can't tax the rich enough to cover this change...the math doesn't work and will never work. The program started with 150 workers for every beneficiary. This trend of fewer workers per retiree is a force you cannot ignore.
Even with me you keep trying to "label" me, you don't know me. And the biggest complaint I have of you is your refuse to look at these discussions from a 360 degree view. And of course your response is to go after me personally and say I'm just a trained stooge - its make sad actually that we can't move toward each other with your personal attacks.
First of all, you're cherry picking again. It's obvious that the top 1% alone can't handle the burden, so stop with the "would only last a year" crap. I've already covered that and it should be obvious. Secondly your number of 150 workers per beneficiary is asinine. Of course there were many more workers per beneficiary the first few years. It took time to get people into the system. Again, the program is workable with the things I've mentioned. All you are doing is presenting numbers that have been cherry picked and leave out another side of the equation. You see what you've been taught to see by conservative media.
There were more beneficiaries because the system was set up that way - but over the years they have added more people by adding more benefits, not increased the age (tho people live longer today than the 1940s) and our population growth has slowed - I don't think you understand how the program really works. Nice try anyway - you do this all the time - I might make several points but hone on just one of them and forget the rest and take it all out of context...
Show me the math...take the numbers on paper and post it here. Show me how in our lifetimes how we increase the worker per beneficiary or increase taxes on everyone...We know about 2034 these programs will be have used up all the "surpluses" I put that in quotes because the money actually doesn't exist except on a spreadsheet. Meanwhile, Medicare is already paying out more than it takes in despite the double taxation on those making more than $200K per year.
Show me the math
So, if we increase the tax about 50%... That's a 3% increase in our overall tax, you seriously can't see how that would keep it funded?
A 1% increase overall would increase SS funding by 1/3. This isn't difficult, Mike. We could do the same for Medicare...2% overall for everyone and they would both be much better over fiscally. Yes, I agree, SOME changes are needed, but not getting rid of the entire system as some state. For one thing, we could increase the tax and allow a percentage of that to be invested in mutual funds. We could also kick the cheaters out of the system.
We have a $1T deficit projected (actually $945B)...and as SSI and Medicare grow the deficit grows. Where do we get $1T in more taxes? We take in about $3.4T in taxes...here is the breakdown of tho biggest...
Personal Income tax - $1.67T in collections
SSI/Medicare - $1.22T in collections
All the other taxes are smaller numbers with corporate taxes bringing in about $240B as the largest other income area.
Show me how we are going to raise taxes $1T to get to balance.
Then explain to me how these changes wouldn't impact how people behave? You have to remember the top 20% pay 86% of the income taxes, do you think they will not make changes?
One help to the budget is to grow the economy, we had 3.2% growth this past year which helps (ideally need to find a way to get to 4% growth) , what happens to growth once you double taxes on those that pay the bulk of the bills - even if they are willing to pay it takes away money they would spend and invest. Don't every forget that 75% of our spending is consumer spending, this drives our economy thus the taxes we can collect.
I admit I don't know all the answers, but the math doesn't work today and we know moving forward we are dealing with people living longer and lower birthrate.
A few things...
1) We have a deficit of that size because Trump cut taxes. We should change it back.
2) I'm not saying double the taxes on the overall income of the top 20%. I'm saying increase the SS AND MEDICARE taxes by 33-100% . Have to look at the numbers to see what's appropriate.
3) Business cannot always increase prices due to higher taxes. The price point is determined in large part by what consumers can afford to pay.
We have an agreement here...and yet what your suggesting will take away more profits, these taxes take money off the top and many businesses can't simple charge more.
The reason why I am pressing you to show me how the math works is because many on your side refuse to do...many on your side believe it we can provide healthcare for all but never show the impact of doubling taxation in our great country to pay for it.
I actually believe that you believe these changes are the right thing to do, I am not questioning your honor or your sincerity - but at the end of the day we have to reduce the deficit such that its growing slower than our economy/tax receipts and if we have to be careful that we don't do it in such a way to degrades our economy that is still the wonder of the world.
A good start would be to bring tax rates back to their pre Trump levels. Another step would be to reduce our time at war... By a lot. Another would be to remove anyone cheating the the SS disability system etc. And add to that, a small increase in the SS and Medicare tax. Not an increase that would cause inflation... Something small like a 1% increase for both, taking them up to around 4% from their current level of around 3%. Now I'll not go back through and find all of the economic research that I have in the past to prove that those numbers would work. I've done my research on tax increase percentages and their effects over the years and that research says that small increase like that have little effect on the cost of the product. Now, a BIG increase would absolutely cause inflation, but these numbers would have a very small impact on inflation and a huge impact on keeping these programs solvent. Also, take it from a combat vet, one that's actually exchanged fire with the enemy, one that has been on the receiving end of rifle, mortar, and artillery fire and that had lost friends, seen women and children butchered, we could do a LOT better by staying at home and out of these wars. Many of you don't understand that because you haven't had to endure it. If you haven't been in that situation, you really need to think about what I've had to say before giving an opinion on the military budget. These generals at the Pentagon will ALWAYS say that the military is underfunded, well at least most of them will.
This thread is like the ole Sunday funnies.