How to Fix Social Security

[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."

[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.

[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 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 Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

Blessed are those who happily count their peanuts. How do you propose we tackle this monstrosity on top of tax cuts? It's easy to say cut spending but from where?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Blessed are those who happily count their peanuts. How do you propose we tackle this monstrosity on top of tax cuts? It's easy to say cut spending but from where?

I'd like to see our post-Iraq defense budget slashed by hundreds of billions, which would preclude us from going into places like Iraq and Bosnia. That alone would save us trillions within a decade.

[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.

[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.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Outside of privatization, sure - it happens everyday. People act irrationally or as short-term discounters, and it costs them more in the long run. Haven't you ever acted out of spite? If you were acting as economic theory would predict, you would not have acted that way in most cases.

In this case, it would depend on the implementation of privatization. If it's partial, it might work. If it's full privatization, I believe it assumes too much about the average population in America. Many people (especially in past generations, but also in this generation) simply do not take ownership of their retirement - that's completely irrational and short discounting. We can place the onus on them by fully privatizing, and then for those that fail say "well, we gave them the tools, even though we knew many would do nothing with them" or we can institute social policy to protect against it.

I'm not saying it won't work - I'm just saying economic theory makes assumptions. You can assume away friction in physics, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.

[GTripp0012]

I support a general phasing out of Social Security over time, and eventually a total elimination of it.

I realize that means that I will be paying a social security tax for the first few years I work, and I will never see any of that money again. I'm fine with that. I kinda view taxes as throwing money into the fire anyway, even though it's obviously necessary to support a vast majority of public help systems. That doesn't mean I expect my tax dollars to all be spent wisely...in fact a good portion of tax dollars are relatively pissed away.

I think the closer someone is to retirement (right now), the more it becomes necessary to have social security for them, since they dont have nearly as much time to develop an alternate retirement plan as I do.

I'm 20, and I can totally save enough for retirement where I don't have to depend on a dime from social security. I have no problem if they take a chunk of my starting salary and put it in the SS fund of some 50 year old guy who is totally dependent on his social security check.

But ten years from now, I would hope that people are planning to retire without social security as a crutch. If I'm not going to benefit from social security, I would expect not to be paying a social security tax when I'm 40.

[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.

[Schneed10]

Well just because it's privatized doesn't mean you can't set a minimum mandatory contribution as part of the program.

Privatization refers mainly to private investment firms offering the investment options, not simply that everyone is responsible for their own retirement account.