How to Fix Social Security

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Privatizing is the most efficient use of our money, by far. Any other solution makes no sense from an economic standpoint.

True, but economics isn't always the most realistic solution to a financial problem. You can't assume away the irrational actor when it comes to the types of people relying on social security.

[GTripp0012]

Even if it was sustainable (which it isn't), with the accelerating rate of inflation looming, $520 isn't going to buy a decent pair of shoes in 40 years. Of course, since the tax is a percentage, I would be paying well more in tax than I would ever receive.

The only wrong answer here is to increase the tax. Even if we do nothing, at least the fund will exhaust itself, and then the program will be dead anyway...its just that a bunch of people will be screwed since they were dependent on it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

True, but economics isn't always the most realistic solution to a financial problem. You can't assume away the irrational actor when it comes to the types of people relying on social security.

Actually economics is exactly the most realistic way to fixing a financial problem. I think you mean mathematics isn't the best way. Economics does in fact at its core rely on people acting in a way that is predictable. Predictably good or bad depending on the situation.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

True, but economics isn't always the most realistic solution to a financial problem. You can't assume away the irrational actor when it comes to the types of people relying on social security.

Is there any particular example where this statement has actually held water?

I don't know one way or another, but it just sounds incorrect.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I say privatize it so that the majority of your money goes into something that can build compound intrest, for one.

Secondly, if the govt decides to dip into it, there is a smaller portion that they would be able to touch.

Overall it is a win, win, win.

Economy, beneficiary, govt.

I voted privatize for the same reason you mention. Good post.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

strengthen the "death tax."

I gotta say this is the first time I have ever heard someone make an argument to strengthen this tax.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Pull out of Iraq, decrease the defence budget to a quarter of what it is, start negotiating for drugs, repeal the Bush tax cut and strengthen the "death tax."

Which "Bush tax cuts" would you repeal? I personally like the reduced capital gains tax and think there is plenty of evidence suggesting they can help stimulate the economy. The reduced capital gains tax pumped billions into the economy. Moreover, the Bush tax cuts arguably did more to help the poor than the rich.

Our budgetary and economic woes have very little to do with the tax cuts, they have much more to do with excessive spending. While the Iraq War is undoubtedly draining our coffers, government mismanagement (e.g., pork-barrel spending and earmarks) are doing their damage as well. It's not a GOP-DNC issue either; the Republicans generally support the costly war effort and the Dems largely killed legislation targeting earmarks.

I personally would like to see less money go to the feds and force them to spend less. I guess that's evidence of my quasi-libertarian leanings.

As for my liberal side, I'd like to see people earning over X amount cut from the Social Security rolls. IMO, a guy with a net worth in the millions doesn't need a few hundred extra bucks a month, notwithstanding the fact that he pumped hundreds of thousands into the Social Security system.

Finally, to appease my conservative side, I'd like to at least experiment with some privitization. I find it somewhat revolting that I don't get to decide what to do with MY money. Frankly, it pisses me off that I give the government so much money and get such a crappy return. Don't I get SOME say and some choices in the matter?

End of rant filled with twists, turns, and tangents.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I gotta say this is the first time I have ever heard someone make an argument to strengthen this tax.

My support for the "death tax" is based on a singular principle of fairness (not from your point of view I am sure). It's my belief that one shouldn't receiver tax free money even if it's coming from their parents. I see parents leaving money for their children as a form of payment and every time I get paid uncle sam takes his cut so why shouldn't he take a bite out of inheritance? Simply put I would like to see the money treated as if it were income and taxed progressively.

I suppose it should be noted that I have no intention of leaving my kids a windfall.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

My support for the "death tax" is based on a singular principle of fairness (not from your point of view I am sure). It's my belief that one shouldn't receiver tax free money even if it's coming from their parents. I see parents leaving money for their children as a form of payment and every time I get paid uncle sam takes his cut so why shouldn't he take a bite out of inheritance? Simply put I would like to see the money treated as if it were income and taxed progressively.

I suppose it should be noted that I have no intention of leaving my kids a windfall.

It already is taxed as income essenitally and taxed pretty damn stiffly,

Oh and I am glad I am not your kids I guess.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

My support for the "death tax" is based on a singular principle of fairness (not from your point of view I am sure). It's my belief that one shouldn't receiver tax free money even if it's coming from their parents. I see parents leaving money for their children as a form of payment and every time I get paid uncle sam takes his cut so why shouldn't he take a bite out of inheritance? Simply put I would like to see the money treated as if it were income and taxed progressively.

I suppose it should be noted that I have no intention of leaving my kids a windfall.

But the parents already paid taxes on the money once. And what about small businesses and family farms? Warren Buffet was before congress recently and he very selflessly offered his opinion that the death tax was important to insure that the rich paid their share. Then it was revealed that he has swooped in and bought up about thirty businesses that were distressed because of the burden placed on them by the death tax.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

But the parents already paid taxes on the money once. And what about small businesses and family farms? Warren Buffet was before congress recently and he very selflessly offered his opinion that the death tax was important to insure that the rich paid their share. Then it was revealed that he has swooped in and bought up about thirty businesses that were distressed because of the burden placed on them by the death tax.

How were the businesses distressed by the death tax?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

How were the businesses distressed by the death tax?

The death tax is like 50% so if you inherit a business from your parents that is worth 3 million dollars, which could be a small appliance store for example, you may be hit with a ginormous tax bill. Now, obviously Buffet isn't buying small appliance retailers but you see the point.

Estate tax (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Buffett thinks this is one tax that's a good idea

Grover G. Norquist on the Death tax and Warren Buffett on NRO Financial=

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The death tax is like 50% so if you inherit a business from your parents that is worth 3 million dollars, which could be a small appliance store for example, you may be hit with a ginormous tax bill. Now, obviously Buffet isn't buying small appliance retailers but you see the point.

Estate tax (United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Buffett thinks this is one tax that's a good idea

Grover G. Norquist on the Death tax and Warren Buffett on NRO Financial=

I have mixed feelings about the estate tax and this is going to sound cold, but those business owners should have better business sense. Death isn't exactly an unforeseeable event. Someone who owns a closely-held/family-owned business and who wants his or her family to continue the business should buy life insurance naming the successors and/or the business itself as beneficiaries. Life insurance isn't cheap, but it shouldn't force well-run businesses to go under.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I have mixed feelings about the estate tax and this is going to sound cold, but those business owners should have better business sense. Death isn't exactly an unforeseeable event. Someone who owns a closely-held/family-owned business and who wants his or her family to continue the business should buy life insurance naming the successors and/or the business itself as beneficiaries. Life insurance isn't cheap, but it shouldn't force well-run businesses to go under.

It's not about it being "cold". It's about sensible economics and being able to pass something on to your children. The people who should be paying this tax are people like Buffet and Gates and their ilk. I can see a logic in the idea that Gates should have to give back some of his billions. Especially since his products suck balls. But I digress. These people are the ones who can afford to set up avoidance mechanisms and never seem to pay taxes of any kind. Most government regulation misses its target. The really, really big companies can absorb all these rules and fees and retrofitting all their bathrooms for transgendered whatever. It's their up and coming potential competitors who get nailed. What it is is Liberal Fascism.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

It already is taxed as income essenitally and taxed pretty damn stiffly,

Oh and I am glad I am not your kids I guess.

OK, so what's the real difference between leaving your money to a total stranger vs leaving it for your children? Suppose I leave the money to someone that isn't my child? Should it be taxed? Should preferential tax treatment be given to your own kids?

I'm sorry but passing down wealth without taxing it is akin to a pyramid scheme. People at the top of the scheme will perpetually be at the top and the income gap in this county will grow exponentially. Not only that but a larger burden of the tax bill will be shouldered by the middle class.

Finally, I assure you you would do well to be my kid. Having a wealthy dad is awesome I tell you My kids will be well taken care of. When they are ready to go to college or buy their first car/home I will be there for them. I will prepare them to succeed in this world, I just won't hand them my estate upon my death. The estate is already earmarked for charity.