Why GOP’s all set to end Medicare as we know it

[toubab]

The first I utterly agree with, the second I fear may be a pointless exercise.

It's very simple, actually. Increase the amount going into the trust fund while simultaneously decreasing the amount going out. It is politically difficult to do, of course, but there is no doubt it would work.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's very simple, actually. Increase the amount going into the trust fund while simultaneously decreasing the amount going out. It is politically difficult to do, of course, but there is no doubt it would work.

You mean, increase the FICA payroll tax while reducing or means-testing SS benefits?

The first, at least, is politically possible -- if it takes the form of making the tax more progressive, like the income tax, which would be a very popular change; it should have been done that way from the beginning anyway.

 

[Amberchgo]

You mean, increase the FICA payroll tax while reducing or means-testing SS benefits?

The first, at least, is politically possible -- if it takes the form of making the tax more progressive, like the income tax, which would be a very popular change; it should have been done that way from the beginning anyway.

So "have the other guy pay" ... Typical looney left solution.

 

[toubab]

You mean, increase the FICA payroll tax while reducing SS benefits, or raising the age for eligibility?

The first, at least, is politically possible -- if it takes the form of making the tax more progressive, like the income tax, which would be a very popular change; it should have been done that way from the beginning anyway.

No, I mean keep the tax rate the same, just eliminate the ceiling. As it is now, it is the opposite of progressive. Higher earners pay a lower percentage of their earnings than lower earners now. I would eliminate that.

I would not change the age for eligibility. I would means test on benefits. The wealthy would collect less than they do at present.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So "have the other guy pay" ... Typical looney left solution.

Stupid Amber sez "give the rich a break".... Typical fringe right solution.

 

[kbate]

No, I mean keep the tax rate the same, just eliminate the ceiling. As it is now, it is the opposite of progressive. Higher earners pay a lower percentage of their earnings than lower earners now. I would eliminate that.

Do you intend to do away with capital gains and make it income as well for the purpose of catching all of the rich?

 

[toubab]

Do you intend to do away with capital gains and make it income as well for the purpose of catching all of the rich?

I don't think that is necessary, at present. If it became necessary at some point in the future, in order to balance the books, so to speak, I would consider it.

 

[kbate]

I don't think that is necessary, at present. If it became necessary at some point in the future, in order to balance the books, so to speak, I would consider it.

So in effect, you wish to hammer those who earn between 120,000 and 1,000,000 a year with an additional tax of 10 to 13.6% while ignoring the truly rich who live by the capital gain, the stock option and the inheritance.

Is Social Security that important? Wouldn't it be just as good an option to have pay go 14% higher by eliminating social security, and give tax breaks to companies who restore and invest in pension plans?

 

[KingOrfeo]

So "have the other guy pay" ... Typical looney left solution.

Progressive income tax has been working well enough for almost a hundred years now, it can't be all that loony.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

-- Adam Smith

 

[toubab]

So in effect, you wish to hammer those who earn between 120,000 and 1,000,000 a year with an additional tax of 10 to 13.6% while ignoring the truly rich who live by the capital gain, the stock option and the inheritance.

Is Social Security that important? Wouldn't it be just as good an option to have pay go 14% higher by eliminating social security, and give tax breaks to companies who restore and invest in pension plans?

I was only addressing a possible way of saving Social Security, not the overall situation in the country concerning wealth inequity. I do have ideas on that as well, but they are even more pie in the sky than what I've suggested on Social Security. It would take a political miracle just to see the problems with Social Security solved. More than that is almost unimaginable, realistically, at this point in the political history of the country.

 

[KingOrfeo]

More than that is almost unimaginable, realistically, at this point in the political history of the country.

True. I have a feeling that might turn around in a few years, if the political left and center-left can ever really get their act together and the Democrats cut all ties with Wall Street.

Like this and this.

 

[kbate]

True. I have a feeling that might turn around in a few years, if the political left and center-left can ever really get their act together and the Democrats cut all ties with Wall Street.

Like this and this.

Most of the ideas proposed are impossible, but the Helicopter drop - was my plan for the 2008/2009 economic stimulus. The same (say 2 trillion) spread out among the 10,000,000 poorest families in America would have ended the recession in weeks rather than slowly over 7 years.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Most of the ideas proposed are impossible . . .

Our narrative connects to policy with the phrase “we build a strong middle class by decisions we make together.” Democrats need to step up with bold policies, many of which are already out there, waiting to be championed. Here are just three:

1. A massive public investment to dramatically increase the use of clean energy – which would at the same time tackle the challenge of climate disruption – with a requirement that all the jobs created pay wages that can support a family.

2. A $15/hr minimum wage that grows with productivity, so that workers get their fare share of the wealth they create.

3. A robust system of public financing that would allow candidates to win office without taking big campaign contributions from anyone, addressing the public’s belief that the rich call the shots.

Poverty and stagnant wages have a common root: a lack of money. And if you ignore the simplest imaginable solution to this problem — namely, handing out money — then restoring economic growth to the middle class is going to be really tough. Indeed, it might be impossible!

After the stark failure of neoliberal policy, blunter methods of raising incomes are at least worth a shot. These include policies like a universal basic income, a universal child credit, a climate dividend, and cash transfers known as helicopter drops.

I presume you mean politically impossible in the current environment, rather than practically impossible? The political environment can change, and seriously proposing these ideas could be the start.

 

[possum123]

I was only addressing a possible way of saving Social Security, not the overall situation in the country concerning wealth inequity. I do have ideas on that as well, but they are even more pie in the sky than what I've suggested on Social Security. It would take a political miracle just to see the problems with Social Security solved. More than that is almost unimaginable, realistically, at this point in the political history of the country.

The biggest problem we have with social security is there isn't any money in it. Just a stack of IOUs. Probably none with even a name on them.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The biggest problem we have with social security is there isn't any money in it. Just a stack of IOUs. Probably none with even a name on them.

They are Treasury Bills, Bonds and Notes. If faith in those wanes we have bigger problems than Social Security.


And to add some facts (I know, I know...) even when the trust fund is empty, Social Security won't disappear; it will still pay 75% of the promised benefits.

 

[unregistered]

 

[possum123]

They are Treasury Bills, Bonds and Notes. If faith in those wanes we have bigger problems than Social Security.


And to add some facts (I know, I know...) even when the trust fund is empty, Social Security won't disappear; it will still pay 75% of the promised benefits.

No matter what you call them they are the same as IOUs.
None of them are cash.
Remember what cash is?
That is what was taken from the people and put in the politicians pocket.

How about we hand put some of the same when it comes payday for the politicians?

 

[JohnnySavage]

No matter what you call them they are the same as IOUs.
None of them are cash.
Remember what cash is?
That is what was taken from the people and put in the politicians pocket.

How about we hand put some of the same when it comes payday for the politicians?

You know, I'm sure, that there's not enough cash in circulation to cover the value of the trust fund.

 

[possum123]

You know, I'm sure, that there's not enough cash in circulation to cover the value of the trust fund.

There would have been if the politicians wouldn't have gotten their hands into the cookie jar.

 

[unregistered]

 

[JohnnySavage]

There would have been if the politicians wouldn't have gotten their hands into the cookie jar.

Oh ffs


There is about $800 million in actual cash money in the world. The US economy is about $16 trillion. The value of the publicly traded companies is about $22 trillion.

The actual amount of cash in circulation is irrelevant because most of the economy is not cash-based.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There would have been if the politicians wouldn't have gotten their hands into the cookie jar.

No it wouldn't have....modern economics revolve around electronic OIU's....not cash money.

The black market is the only thing running on cash.

 

[possum123]

Oh ffs


There is about $800 million in actual cash money in the world. The US economy is about $16 trillion. The value of the publicly traded companies is about $22 trillion.

The actual amount of cash in circulation is irrelevant because most of the economy is not cash-based.

People make all kinds of excuses for politicians who continue to steal our money.

What about all of the money that is supposed to be setting in an account from the illegals? Somehow that money has disappeared also and without even an IOU.

 

[BotanyBoy]

People make all kinds of excuses for politicians who continue to steal our money.

What about all of the money that is supposed to be setting in an account from the illegals? Somehow that money has disappeared also and without even an IOU.

So you just make shit up and live in fantasy land....good to know.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Progressive income tax has been working well enough for almost a hundred years now, it can't be all that loony.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

-- Adam Smith

You fail to realize that not only the middle class hate onerous taxes, but so do the rich. I read a story awhile back about a State (think it was New Jersey) that had something like a 150 million dollar shortfall. They decided to make a tax for the rich to cover it. A lot of the rich did not like it so they moved to a more tax-friendly State. Now the State ended up with a 300+ million dollar shortfall because of their actions.